Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans

iV

n

t

i<

i

I

Digitized by the Internet Arcinive

in 2007 witii funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

I

http://www.arcliive.org/details/commentaryonsrom01godeuoft

^

^ w

CLARK'S

FOREIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SERIES.
VOL. IL v/ /

c)

Ootiet on ^t. I^anl'i <SpiitU to tljie l&omatM.
VOL 1.

EDINBURGH:
T. k T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.

PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED,

FOR

T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

U)NDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCEIBNKR's SONS.

COMMENTARY

ON

ST. PAUL'S

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

O

BY

F. GODET, D.D.,

FTIOPESSOR OF THEOLOGY, NEUCHATEL.

S^ranslnteti from tljc JFrencfj "^

By it^v. A. CUSIN, M.A., Edinburgh.

O

VOLUME first:

EDINBURGH

^J T. & T. CLARK,[|38 GEORGE STREET.

SlT^I t

<£r

JAN 25 1968

&S/TV OF TO^og;

PEEFACJfi.

NO one will deny that there is room for some emotion in
giving to the public a Commentary on the Epistle to
the Eomans. It avails nothing that the author is only the
interpreter of a given text. The contents of that text,
accepted or rejected, affect his readers so decisively, that the
author, who serves them as a guide, feels himself at every
step under a burden of the gravest responsibility.

This consideration cannot weigh with me, however, to
prevent me from offering to the church, and especially to the
churches of the French language, this fruit of a study which,
in the course of my theological teaching, I have been called
again and again to renew.

I shall here state frankly an anxiety w^hich fills my mind.
I believe the divine conception of salvation, as expounded by
St. Paul in this fundamental work, to be more seriously
threatened at this moment than ever it was before. For not
only is it combated by its declared adversaries, but it is
abandoned by its natural defenders. In the divine acts of
expiation and justification by faith, which formed, according to.
the apostle's declaration, tlie gospel which he had received ly the
revelation of Jesus Ghrisi (Gal. i.), how many Christians see
nothing more, and would have the church henceforth to see
nothing more, than a theological system, crammed with Jewish
notions, whicli St. Paul had himself conceived by meditating
on Jesus Christ and His work !

It will not be long, I fear, ere we see what becomes of the
life of individuals and of the church, as soon as its roots
cease to strike into the fruitful soil of apostolical revelation.
A religious life languishing and sickly, a sanctification without
vigour or decision, and no longer distinguished by any marked
feature from the simple morality of nature, — such wiU be the

7

yiJJ PREFACE.

goal, very soon reached, of that rational evolution on wliich
the church, and particularly our studious youth, are invited
to enter. The least obscuration of the divine mind, com-
municated to the world by means of apostolical revelation,
has for its immediate effect a diminution of spiritual life and
strength.

Must the church of France, in particular, lose the best part
of its strength at the very moment when God seems at length
to be bringing France into its arms ? This would be the last
tragedy of its history — sadder still than all the bloody but
heroic days of its past.

It is neither the empty affirmations of free thought, nor the
vague teachings of a semi-rationalism, — which does not know
itself whether it believes in a revelation or not, — which will
present a sufficient basis for the religious elevation of a whole
nation. For there is needed a doctrine which is firm, positive,
divine, like the gospel of Paul.

When the Epistle to the Komans appeared for the first
time, it was to the church a word in season. Every time
that, in the course of the ages, it has recovered the place of
honour which belongs to it, it has inaugurated a new era. It
was so half a century ago, when that revival took place, the
powerful influence of which remains unexhausted to this hour.
To that movement, which still continues, the present com-
mentary seeks to attach itself. May it also be in some
measure to the church of the present a word in season !

I may be justly charged with not having more completely
ransacked the immense library which has gradually formed
round St Paul's treatise. My answer is : I might have . . .
but on condition of never coming to an end. Should I have
done so ?

And as I have been obliged to set a limit to my study,
I have been obliged to restrict also the exposition of the
results of my labour. If I had allowed myself to cross the
boundaries of exposition properly so called, to enter more than
I have sometimes done into the domain of dogmatic develop-
ments, or into that of practical applications, the two volumes
would have been soon increased to fbur or six. It was better
for me to incur the charge of dryness, which will not repel
•ny »eriou8 reader, than to fall into prolixity, which would

t»REFACE.

have done greatly more to injure the usefulness of the
Commentary.

The pious Sailer used to say : " 0 Christianity, had thy one
work been to produce a St. Paul, that alone should have
rendered thee dear to the coldest reason." May we not be
permitted to add : And thou, O St. Paul, had thy one work
been to compose an Epistle to the Eomans, that alone should
have rendered thee dear to every sound reason.

May the Spirit of the Lord make all of His own that He
has deigned to put into this work, fruitful within the church,
and in the heart of every reader 1

YHB AUTHOR.

CONTENTS.

1^"TR0DUCTI01T.

ChaI'. 1.— The Apostle Paul, . . .

I. St. Paul before his Convorsion,
II. His Conversion,
III. His Apostleship,

Chap. II.— The Church of Rome,

I. Foundation of the Roman Church,
II. Composition and Tendency of the Roman Church,

Chap. III.— The Epistle,

I. The Author, . •

II. The Date, .
III. The Aim, .

First Group : Apologetic Aim,
Second Group : Polemic Aim,
Third Group : Didactic Aim,

Chap. IV. — Arrangement and Plan of the Epistle,

Chap. V.— Preservation of the Text, .

Principal Commentators, .

Title of the Epistle,

PAGE
3

3

10
20

60

60
70

76

76
78
80
82
87
92

100

108
116
118

COMMENTARY.

PREFACE, I. 1-15,

First Passage. — The Address, i. 1-7,
Second Passage. — The Interest long taken by the
Christians of Rome, i 8-15,

THE TREATISE, I. 16-XV. 13,

Third Passage. — The Statement of the Subject, i
Excursus on the word lixuiovv, to justify,
11

Apostl

16, 17,

e in the

119
119

141

160
150
157

tii CONTENTS.

PACT
PUNDAMKNTAL PaRT, I. 18-V. 21, . ^ . t • 163

FiOBT SKCTioy.— The Wrath of God resting on tlie vfhole World,

i. 18-iii. 20, 164

Fourth Passage.— The Wrath of God on the Gentiles, i. 18-32, . 164
Fifth Passage.— The Wrath of God suspended over the Jewish .

People, ii. 1-29, 189

Sixth Passage. — Jewish Prerogative does not imply Exemption

from Judgment, iii. 1-8, ..... 220

Seventh Passage.— Scripture proclaims the fact of Universal
Condemnation, iii. 9-20, . . . . 233

Second Section. — Justification by Faith acquired for the whole

World, iii 21-v. 11 244

Eighth Passage. — The Fact by which Justification by Faith is
acquired for us, iii. 21-26, ..... 245

Excursus. — The Expiation, ..... 269

Ninth Passage. — The Harmony of this Mode of Justification with
the true Meaning of the Law, iii. 27-31, . . . 274

Tenth Passage. — Faith the Principle of Abraham's Justification,

iv. 1-25, ....... 282

Eleventh Passage.— The Certainty of Final Salvation for Believers,

y- 1-11, 313

TuiRD Section, v. 12-21, . . . . . .338

Twelfth Passage. —The Universality of Salvation in Christ proved
by the Universality of Death in Adam, v. 12-21, . . 338

First Part. — Supplementary, chaps. vi.-viii. — Sanctification, . , 392

First Section.— The Principle of Sanctification contained in

Justification by Faith, vL l-vii. 6, . . . .399

Thirteenth Passage.— Sanctification in Christ dead and risen,

▼»• 1-1*1 ....... 399

Excursus on the meaning of the expression : To die unto sin, 402

Infant Baptism, . . . . . . 410

Fourteenth Passage.— The Power of the new Principle of Sancti-
"fication to deliver from Sin, vL 15-23, . . . .429

INTKODUCTION.

COLEEIDGE calls the Epistle to the Eomans "the pro-
foundest book in existence." Chrysostom had it read
to him twice a week. Luther, in his famous preface, says :
" This Epistle is the chief book of the New Testament, the
purest gospel. It deserves not only to be known word for
word by every Christian, but to be the subject of his medita-
tion day by day, the daily bread of his soul. . . . The more
time one spends on it, the more precious it becomes and the
better it appears." Melanchthon, in order to make it perfectly
his own, copied it twice with his own hand. It is the book
which he expounded most frequently in his lectures. The
Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to
the Romans, as well as of that to the Galatians; and the
probability is that every great spiritual revival in the church
will be connected as effect and cause with a deeper under-
standing of this book. This observation unquestionably
applies to the various religious awakenings which have suc-
cessively marked the course of our century.

The exposition of such a book is capable of boundless
progress. In studying the Epistle to the Eomans we feel
ourselves at every word face to face with the unfathomable.
Our experience is somewhat analogous to what we feel when
contemplating the great masterpieces of medieval architecture,
such, for example, as the Cathedral of Milan. We do not
know which to admire most, the majesty of the whole or the
tinish of the details, and every look makes the discovery of
some new perfection. And yet the excellence of the book
with which we are about to be occupied should by no means
discourage the expositor ; it is much rather fitted to stimulate
him. " What book of the New Testament," says Meyer, in
his preface to the fifth edition of his commentary, "less
entitles the expositor to spare his pains than this, the
greatest and richest of all the apostolic works ? " Only it

GODET. A ROM. I.

2 INTRODUCTION.

must not he imagined that to master its meaning nothing
more is needed than the philological analysis of the text, or
even the theological study of the contents. The true under-
standing of this masterpiece of the apostolic mind is reserved
for those who approach it with the heart described by Jesua
in His Sermon on the Mount, the heart hungering and
thirsting after righteousness. For what is the Epistle to the
Romans ? The offer of the righteousness of God to the man
who finds himself stripped by the law of his own righteousness
(i 17). To understand such a book we must yield ourselves
to the current of the intention under which it was dictated.

M. de Pressense has called the great dogmatic works of the
Middle Ages " the cathedrals of thought." The Epistle to the
Romans is the cathedral of the Christian faith.

Sacred criticism, which prepares for the exposition of the
books of the Bible, has for its object to elucidate the various
questions relating to their origin; and of those questions
there are always some which can only be resolved with the
help of the exegesis itself. The problem of the composition
of the Epistle to the Romans includes several questions of
this kind. We could not answer them in this introduction
without anticipating the work of exegesis. It will be better,
therefore, to defer the final solution of them to the con-
cluding chapter of the commentary. But there are others,
the solution of which is perfectly obvious, either from the
simple reading of the Epistle, or from certain facts established
by church history. It cannot be other than advantageous to
the exposition to gather together here the results presented by
these two sources, which are fitted to shed light on the origin
of our Epistle. It will afford an opportunity at the same
time of explaining the different views on the subject which
have arisen in the course of ages.

An apostolical epistle naturally results from the combina-
tion of two factors: the personality of the author, and the
state of the church to which he writes. Accordingly, our
introduction will bear on the following points : 1. The Apostle
Paul ; 2. The Church of Rome ; 3. The circumstances under
which the Epistle was composed.

In a supplementary chapter we shall treat of the preserva-
tion of the text.

CHAPTEE I.

THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL.

IF we had to do with any other of St. Paul's Epistles,
we should not think ourselves called to give a sketch
of the apostle's career. But the Epistle to the Romans is
80 intimately bound up with the personal experiences of its
author, it so contains the essence of his preaching, or, to use
his own expression twice repeated in our Epistle, his Gospel
(ii. 16, xvi. 25), that the study of the book in this case
imperiously requires that of the man who composed it.
St. Paul's other Epistles are fragments of his life ; here we
have his life itself.

Three periods are to be distinguished in St. Paul's career :
1. His life as a Jew and Pharisee ; 2. His conversion ; 3. His
life as a Christian and apostle. In him these two characters
blend.

I. St. Paul before his Conversion.

Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, on the confines of
Syria and Asia Minor (see his own declarations. Acts xxi. 39,
xxii. 3). Jerome mentions a tradition, according to which he
was born at Gischala in Galilee.^ His family, says he, had
emigrated to Tarsus after the devastation of their country.
If this latter expression refers to the devastation of Galilee by
the Romans, the statement contains an obvious anachronism.
And as it is difficult to think of any other catastrophe
unknown to us, the tradition is without value.^

Paul's family belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, as he

* De Vir. illust. c. 5.

^ It is not quite exact to say, as Lange has done in Herzog's Encyclopedia,
avt. "Paulus," that Jerome retracted this assertion in his Commentary on the
Epistle to Philemx)n. The phrase : talemfabulam accepimus, implies no intention
of the kind (see Hausrath in Schenkel's Bibellexicon, art. " Paulus ").

4 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I

himself writes, Rom. xi. 1 and Phil. iii. 5. His name, Saul
or Saiil, was probably common in this tribe in memory of the
first king of Israel, taken from it. His parents belonged to
the sect of the Pharisees; compare his declaration before the
assembled Sanhedrim (Acts xxiii. 6) : " I am a Pharisee, the
son of a Pharisee," and Phil. iii. 5. They possessed, though
how it became theirs we know not, the right of Eoman
citizens, which tends, perhaps, to claim for them a somewhat
higher social position than belonged to the Jews settled in
Gentile countries. The influence which this sort of dignity
exercised on his apostolic career can be clearly seen in various
passages of Paul's ministry (comp. Acts xvi. 37 et seq., xxii.
25-29, xxiii. 27).

The language spoken in Saul's family was undoubtedly the
Syro-Chaldean, usual in the Jewish communities of Syria.
But the young Saul does not seem to have remained a
stranger to the literary and philosophical culture of the
Greek world, in the midst of which he passed his childhood.
" Tarsus," even in Xenophon's time, as we find him relating
{Anab. i. 2. 23), was "a city large and prosperous." In the
age of Saul it disputed the empire of letters with its two
rivals, Athens and Alexandria. In what degree Greek culture
is to be ascribed to the apostle, has often been made matter
of discussion. In his writings -we meet with three quotations
from Greek poets : one belongs both to the Cilician poet
Aratus (in his Fhcenomena) and to Cleanthes (in his Hymn to
Jupiter)) it is found in Paul's sermon at Athens, Acts
xvii. 28 : "As certain also of your own poets have said. We
are also his offspring ; " the second is taken from the ThcCis of
Menander; it occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 33 : "Evil companionships
corrupt good manners;" the third is borrowed from the Cretan
poet Epimenides, in his work on Oracles ; it is found in the
Epistle to Titus i. 12 : " One of themselves, a prophet of their
own, said: The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow
bellies." Are these quotations proofs of a certain knowledge
of Greek literature which Paul had acquired? M. Renan
thinks not. He believes that they can be explained as
borrowings at second hand, or even from the common usage
of proverbs circulating in everybodv's mouth.^ This sup-

* Lta Apdtren, p. 1G7.

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 5

position might apply in all strictness to the second and third
quotation. But there is a circumstance which prevents us
from explaining the first, that which occurs in the discourse
at Athens, in the same way. Paul here uses this form ol
citation: "Some of your poets have said . . ." If he really
expressed himself thus, he must have known the use made by
the two writers, Aratus and Cleanthes, of the sentence quoted
by him. In that case he could not have been a stranger to
their writings. A young mind like Paul's, so vivacious and
eager for instruction, could not live in a centre such as
Tarsus without appropriating some elements of the literary
life which flourished around it.

Nevertheless it cannot be doubted that his education was
essentially Jewish, both in respect to the instruction he
received and to the language used.^ Perhaps he was early
destined to the office of Rabbin. His rare faculties naturally
qualified him for this function, so highly honoured of aU in
Israel. There is connected with the choice of this career a
circumstance which was not without value in the exercise of
his apostolical ministry. According to Jewish custom, the
Rabbins required to be in a position to gain their livelihood
by means of some manual occupation. This was looked upon
as a guarantee of independence and a preservative from sin.
The received maxim ran thus : " The study of the law is good,
provided it be associated with a trade. . . . Otherwise, it is
useless and even hurtful" ^ Saul's parents chose a trade for
him which was probably connected with the circumstances of
the country where they dwelt, that of tentmaker ((TK7jvo7roc6<;,
Acts xviii. 3), a term which denoted the art of making a
coarse cloth woven from the hair of the Cilician goats, and
used in preference to every other kind in the making of tents
The term used in the Book of the Acts thus denotes the work
of weavinsj rather than tailorinf]r.

When we take account of all the circumstances of Saul's
childhood, we understand the feeling of gratitude and adora-
tion which at a later date drew forth from him the words,

^ Hausrath has with much sagacity collected the facts which establish the
influence of the Aramaic language on the style of Paul (Bibellex., art. ** Paulus,"
IV. 409^.

^ Pirke AhoL II. 2.

S INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. L

GaL i. 15 : "God, who separated me from my mothers womb!*
If it is true that Paul's providential task was to free the
gospel from the wrappings of Judaism in order to offer it to
the Gentile world in its pure spirituality, he required, with a
view to this mission, to unite many seemingly contradictory
qualities. He needed, above all, to come from the very heart
of Judaism ; only on this condition could he thoroughly know
life under the law, and could he attest by his own experi-
ence the powerlessness of this alleged means of salvation.
But, on the other hand, he required to be exempt from
that national antipathy to the Gentile world with which
Palestinian Judaism was imbued. How would he have been
able to open the gates of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles
of the whole world, if he had not lived in one of the great
centres of Hellenic life, and been familiarized from his
infancy with all that was noble and great in Greek culture,
that masterpiece of the genius of antiquity ? It was also, as
we have seen, a great advantage for him to possess the
privilege of a Eoman citizen. He thus combined in his
person the three principal social spheres of the age, Jewish
legalism, Greek culture, and Eoman citizenship. He was, as
it were, a living point of contact between the three. If, in
particular, he was able to plead the cause of the gospel in
the capital of the world and before the supreme tribunal of
the empire, as well as before the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem and
the Athenian Areopagus, it was to his right as a Eoman
citizen that he owed the privilege. Not even the manual
occupation learned in his childhood failed to play its part in
the exercise of his apostleship. When, for reasons of signal
delicacy, which he has explained in chap. ix. of his first
Epistle to the Corinthians, he wished to make the preaching
of the Gospel, so far as he was concerned, without charge, in
order to secure it from the false judgments which it could
not have escaped in Greece, it was this apparently insig-
nificant circumstance of his boyhood which put him in a
position to gratify the generous inspiration of his heart.

The young Saul must have quitted Tarsus early, for he
himself reminds the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in the discourse
which he delivers to them. Acts xxii., that he had been
"brouorht up in this city." In chap. xxvi. 4 he thus

CHAP. L] the apostle ST. PAUL. 7

expresses himself not less publicly : " All the Jews know my
manner of life from my youth at Jerusalem." Ordinarily it
was at the age of twelve that Jewish children were taken for
the first time to the solemn feasts at Jerusalem. They then
became, according to the received phrase, " sons of the law."
Perhaps it was so with Saul, and perhaps he continued thence-
forth in this city, where some of his family seem to have been
domiciled. Indeed, mention is made, Acts xxiii. 16, of a
son of his sister who saved him from a plot formed against his
life by some citizens of Jerusalem.

He went through his Eabbinical studies at the school of the
prudent and moderate Gamaliel, the grandson of the famous
Hillel. " Taught," says Paul, " at the feet of Gamaliel, accord-
ing to the perfect manner of the law of our fathers " (Acts
xxii. 3). Gamaliel, according to the Talmud, knew Greek
literature better than any other doctor of the law. His
reputation for orthodoxy nevertheless remained unquestioned.
Facts will prove that the young disciple did not fail to appro-
priate the spirit of wisdom and lofty prudence which distin-
guished this eminent man. At his school Saul became one
of the most fervent zealots for the law of Moses. And practice
with him kept pace with theory. He strove to surpass all
his fellow-disciples in fulfilling the traditional prescriptions.
This is the testimony which he gives of himself. Gal. i. 14;
Phil. iii. 6. The programme of moral life traced by the law
and elaborated by Pharisaical teaching, was an ideal ever
present to his mind, and on the realization of which were
concentrated all the powers of his will. He resembled that
young man who asked Jesus " by the doing of what work "
he could obtain eternal life. To realize the law perfectly,
and to merit the glory of the kingdom of heaven by the
righteousness thus acquired — such was his highest aspiration.
Perhaps there was added to this ambition another less pure,
the ambition of being able to contemplate himself in the
mirror of his conscience with unmixed satisfaction. Who
knows whether he did not flatter himself that he might thus
gain the admiration of his superiors, and so reach the highest
dignities of the Eabbinical hierarchy ? If pride had not clung
like a gnawing worm to the very roots of his righteousness,
the fruit of the tree could not have been so bitter ; and the

8 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. 1.

catastrophe which overturned it would be inexplicable. In-
deed, it is his own experience which Paul describes when he
says, Eom. x. 2, 3, in speaking of Israel : " I bear them record
that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about
to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted them-
selves unto the righteousness of God " [that which God offers
to the ^voTld in Jesus Christ].

Three natural characteristics, rarely found in union, must
have early shown themselves in him, and attracted the atten-
tion of his masters from his student days : vigour of intellect
— ^it was in this quality that he afterwards excelled St. Peter ;
strength of will — perhaps he was thus distinguished from
St. John ; and liveliness of feeling. Everywhere we find in
him an exuberance of the deepest or most delicate sensibility,
taking the forms of the most rigorous dialectic, and joined to
a will fearless and invincible.

In his exterior Saul must have been of a weakly appear-
ance. In 2 Cor. x. 10 he reproduces the reproach of his
adversaries : " His bodily appearance is weak." In Acts xiv.
12 et seq. we see the Lycaonian crowd taking Barnabas for
Jupiter, and Paul for Mercury, which proves that the former
was of a higher and more imposing stature than the latter.
But there is a wide interval between this and the portrait
of the apostle, drawn in an apocryphal writing of the
second century, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, a portrait to
which M. Ptenan in our judgment ascribes far too much
value.^ Paul is described in this book as " a man little of
stature, bald, short-legged, corpulent, with eyebrows meeting,
and prominent nose." This is certainly only a fancy por-
trait. In the second century nothing was known of St. Paul's
apostolate after his two years' captivity at Eome, with which
the history of the Acts closes; and -yet men still know at that
date what was the appearance of his nose, eyebrows, and legs \
From such passages as Gal. iv. 13, where he mentions a sick-
ness which arrested him in Galatia, and 2 Cor. xii. 7, where
he speaks of a thorn in tlie flesh, a messenger of Satan buffeting
him, it lias been concluded that he was of a sickly and nervous
temperament ; he has even been credited with epHeptic fits.

* Les Apdtrest V- 170.

CHAP. 1.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 9

But the first passage proves nothing ; for a sickness in one
particular case does not imply a sickly constitution. The
second would rather go to prove the opposite, for Paul declares
that the bodily affliction of which he speaks was given him, —
that is to say, inflicted for the salutary purpose of providing
the counterpoise of humiliation, to the exceeding greatness of
the revelations which he received. The fact in question must
therefore rather be one which supervened during the course
of his apostleship. Is it possible, besides, that a man so pro-
foundly shattered in constitution could for thirty years have
withstood the labours and sufferings of a career such as that
of Paul notoriously was ? ^

Marriage takes place early among the Jews. Did Saul
marry during his stay at Jerusalem ? Clement of Alexandria,
and Eusebius among the ancients, answer in the affirmative
Luther and the Eeformers generally shared this view. Haus-
rath has defended it lately on grounds which are not without
weight.^ The passages, 1 Cor. vii. 7 : " I would that all men
were even as I myself " (unmarried), and ver. 8 : " I say to
the unmarried and widows. It is good for them if they abide
even as I," do not decide the question, for Paul might hold
this language as a widower not less than if he were a celibate.
But the manner in which the apostle speaks, ver. 7, of the
gift which is granted him, and which he would not sacrifice,
of living as an immarried man, certainly suits a celibate better
than a widower.

Had Saul, during his sojourn at Jerusalem, the opportunity
of seeing and hearing the Lord Jesus ? If he studied at the
capital at this period, he can hardly have failed to meet Him
in the temple. Some have alleged in favour of this supposi-
tion the passage, 2 Cor. v. 16: " Yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no
more." But this phrase is rather an allusion to the preten-
sions of some of his adversaries, who boasted of their personal
relations to the Lord ; or more simply still, it denotes the

^ 111 an interesting article (Revue chrStienne, March 1878) M. Nyegard has
taken up and supported the view of several German theologians, and of Eiickert
in particular (Gal. iv. 14), that the weakness in question was a disease of the
eyes. The argument of this writer is ingenious. But none of his proofs seem
to us convincing.

- Bibellex. .art " I'aulua. "

10 INTEODUCTION. [CHAP. L

carnal nature of the Messianic hope current among the Jews.
As there is not another word in Paul's Epistles fitted to lead
us to suppose that he himself saw the Lord during His earthly
life, Eenan and Mangold have concluded that he was absent
from the capital at the time of the ministry of Jesus, and that
he did not return to it till some years later, about the date
of Stephen's martyrdom. But even had he lived abroad at
that period, he must as a faithful Jew have returned to Jeru-
salem at the feasts. It is certainly difficult to suppose that
St. Paul did not one time or other meet Jesus, though his
writings make no allusion to the fact of a knowledge so
purely external.

Saul had reached the age which qualified him for entering
on public duties, at his thirtieth year. Distinguished above
all his fellow-disciples by his fanatical zeal for the Jewish
religion in its Pharisaic form, and by his hatred to the new
doctrine, which seemed to him only a colossal imposture, he
was charged by the authorities of his nation to prosecute the
adherents of the Nazarene sect, and, if possible, to root it out
After having played a part in the murder of Stephen, and
persecuted the believers at Jerusalem, he set out for Damascus,
the capital of Syria, with letters from the Sanhedrim, which
authorized him to fill the same office of inquisitor in the
synagogues of that city. We have reached the fact of his
conversion.

II. His Conversion.

In the midst of his Pharisaical fanaticism Saul did not
enjoy peace. In chap. vii. of the Epistle to the Eomans,
he has unveiled the secret of his inner life at this period.
Sincere as his efforts were to realize the ideal of righteous-
ness traced by the law, he discovered an enemy within him
which made sport of his best resolutions, namely lust. " I
knew not sin but by the law; for I had not known lust
except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." And thus
he made the most important experience of his life, that which
he has expressed in these words of the Epistle to the Eomans
(iii. 20) : " By the law is the knowledge of sin." The painful
feeling of his powerlessness to realize virtue was, if I may so
call it, the negative preparation for the crisis which trans-

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 11

formed his life. His soul, hungering and thirsting after
righteousness, found the attempt vain to nourish itself with
its own works ; it did not succeed in satisfying itself.

Another circumstance, fitted to prepare for the change in
a more positive way, occurred at this period. An inactive
witness of Stephen's martyrdom, Saul could calmly contem-
plate the bloody scene, — see the brow of the martyr irradiated
with heavenly brightness, and hear his invocation addressed
to the glorified Son of man, in which was revealed the secret
of his love and triumphant hope. His soul was no doubt
deeply pierced in that hour ; and it was with the view of
cicatrizing this wound that he set himself with redoubled
violence to the work of destruction which he had undertaken.
" The hour shall come," Jesus had said to His apostles, " in
which whosoever shall kill you will think that he renders
God worship." It was really with this thought that the
young persecutor raged against the Christians. Nothing but
an immediate interposition on the part of Him whom he was
thus persecuting could arrest this charger in his full career,
whom the sharp prickings by which he felt himself inwardly
urged only served to irritate the more.

The attempt has been made in modern times to explain in
a purely natural way the sudden revolution which passed over
the feelings, convictions, and life of Saul.

Some have described it as a revolution of an exclusively
inward character, and purely moral origin. Holsten, in his
work on the Gospel of Peter and Paul (1868), has brought to
this explanation all the resources of his remarkable sagacity.
But his own master, Baur, while describing the appearing of
Jesus at the moment of Saul's conversion as " the external
reflection of a spiritual process," could not help acknowledging,
after all, that there remains in the fact something mysterious
and unfathomable: "We do not succeed by any analysis,
either psychological or dialectical, in fathoming the mystery
of the act by which God revealed His Son in Saul." *

The fact is, the more we regard the moral crisis which
determined this revolution, as one slowly and profoundly
prepared for, the more does its explanation demand the inter-

^ Das Christenthum und die christliche Kirche der drei ersien Jahrhunderte,
3d ed. p. 45.

12 INTRODUCTION. [CIIAP. L

position of an external and supernatural agent. We cannot
help reciilling the picture drawn by Jesus, of " the stronger
man " overcoming " the strong man," who has no alternative
left save to give himself up with all that he has into the
hands of his conqueror. Saul himself had felt this sovereign
interposition so profoundly, that in 1 Cor. ix. he distinguishes
his apostleship, as the result of constraint, from that of the
Twelve, which had been perfectly free and voluntary (vv. 16-18
comp. with vv. 5, 6). He, Paul, was taken by force. He
was not asked : Wilt thou ? It was said to him, Woe to thee,
if tlwu obey not ! For this reason it is that he feels the
need of introducing into his ministry, as an afterthought,
that element of free choice which has been so completely
divorced from its origin, his voluntarily renouncing all pecu-
niary recompense from the churches, and imposing on himself
the burden of his own support, and even sometimes that of
his fellow-labourers (comp. Acts xx. 34). This fact is the
striking testimony borne by the conscience of Paul himself
to the purely passive character of the transformation which
was wrought in him.

The account given in the Acts harmonizes with this
declaration of the apostle's conscience. The very shades
which are observable in the three narratives of the fact con-
tained in the book, prove that a mysterious phenomenon was
really perceived by those who accompanied Saul, and that the
fact belongs in some way to the world of sense. They did
not discern the person who spoke to him, so it is said, Acts
ix. 7, but they were struck with a brightness surpassing tliat
of ordinary sunlight (xxii. 9, xxvi. 13) ; they did not hear dis-
tinctly the words which were addressed to him (Acts xxii. 9),
but they heard the sound of a voice (Acts ix. 1)} Sometimes
these striking details of the narrative have been alleged as
contradictions. But the hypothesis has become inadmissible
since criticism, by the pen of Zeller himself, has established
beyond dispute the unity of authorship and composition
characterizing the whole book. Supposing even the author

» It is to be observed that in the former of the two passages the writer iisps
the accusative (rh ^«»n'»), and in the latter the genitive (r^J,- ^a,v?0 ; in the
former case he had in view the penetration of the meaning of the words ; in the
Utter, the confused perception of the sound of the voice.

CHAP. 1.3 THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. II

to have used documents, it is certain that he has impressed
on his narrative from one end to the other the stamp of his
style and thought. In such circumstances, how could there
possibly be a contradiction in a matter of fact ? It must
therefore be admitted that while Saul alone saio the Lord and
understood His words, his fellow-travellers observed and heard
something extraordinary ; and this last particular sufifices to
prove the objectivity of the appearance.

Paul himself was so firmly convinced on this head, that
when proving the reality of his apostleship, 1 Cor. ix. 1, he
appeals without hesitation to the fact that he has seen the
Lord, which cannot apply in his judgment to a simple vision ;
for no one ever imagined that a vision could suffice to confer
apostleship. In chap. xv. of the same Epistle, ver. 8, Paul
closes the enumeration of the appearances of the risen Jesus
to the apostles with that whicli was granted to himself; he
therefore ascribes to it the same reality as to those, and thus
distinguishes it thoroughly from all the visions with which
he was afterwards honoured, and which are mentioned in tlie
Acts and Epistles. And the very aim of the chapter proves
that what is in his mind can be nothing else than a bodily
and external appearing of Jesus Christ ; for his aim is to
demonstrate the reality of our Lord's hodily resurrection, and
from that fact to establish the reality of the resurrection in
general. Now all the visions in the w^orld could never
demonstrate either the one or the other of these two facts :
Christ's bodily resurrection and ours. Let us observe, besides,
that when Paul expressed himself on facts of this order, he
was far from proceeding uncritically. This appears from the
passage, 2 Cor. xii. 1 et seq. He does not fail here to put
a question to himself of the very kind which is before our-
selves. Eor in the case of the Damascus appearance he
expresses himself categorically, he guards himself on the
contrary as carefully in the case mentioned 2 Cor. xii. 1 et
seq. against pronouncing for the external or purely internal
character of the phenomenon : " I know not ; God knoweth,"
says he. Gal. i. 1 evidently rests on the same conviction of
the objectivity of the manifestation of Christ, when He
appeared to him as risen, to call him to the apostleship.

M. Ptenan has evidently felt that, to account for a change

14 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

SO sudden and complete, recourse must be had to some
external factor acting powerfully in Saul's moral life. He
hesitates between a storm bursting on Lebanon, a flash of
lightning spreading a sudden brilliance, or an increase of
ophthalmic fever producing in the mind of Saul a violent
hallucination. But causes so superficial could never have
effected a moral change so profound and durable as that to
which Paul's whole subsequent life testifies. Here is the
judgment of Baur himself, in his treatise, Der Apostel Paulus}
on a supposition of the same kind : " We shall not stop to
examine it, for it is a pure hypothesis, not only without
anything for it in the text, but having its obvious meaning
against it." M. Eeuss^ thus expresses himself: "After all
that has been said in our time, the conversion of Paul still
remains, if not an absolute miracle in the traditional sense
of the word (an effect without any other cause than the
arbitrary and immediate interposition of God), at least a
psychological problem insoluble to the present hour."

Keim, too, cannot help acknowledging the objectivity of
the appearance of Christ which determined so profound
a revolution. Only he transports the fact from the world
of the senses into the not less real one of the spirit. He
thinks that the glorified Lord really manifested Himself to
Paul by means of a spiritual action exercised over his souL
This explanation is the forced result of these two factors : on
the one hand, the necessity of ascribing an objective cause
to the phenomenon ; on the other, the predetermined resolu-
tion not to acknowledge the miracle of our Lord's bodily
resurrection. But we shall here apply the words of Baur :
" Not only has this hypothesis nothing for it in the text, but
it has against it its obvious meaning." It transforms the three
narratives of the Acts into fictitious representations, since,
according to this explanation, Saul's fellow-travellers could
have seen nothing at all.

If Paul had not personally experienced our Lord's bodily
presence, he would never have dared to formulate the paradox,
offensive in the highest degree, and especially to a Jewish
theologian (CoL ii. 9) ; " In Him dwelleth all the fulness of
the Godhead bodily:*

» 2d ed. p. 78. « l^^ EpUres pauUniennes, p. 11.

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. Ifi

With Saul's conversion a supreme hour struck in the
history of humanity. If, as Eenan justly says, there came
with the birth of Jesus the moment when " the capital event
in the history of the world was about to be accomplished, the
revolution whereby the noblest portions of humanity were
to pass from paganism to a religion founded on the divine
unity," ^ the conversion of Paul was the means whereby God
took possession of the man who was to be His instrument in
bringing about this imparalleled revolution.

The moment had come when the divine covenant, estab-
lished in Abraham with a single family, was to extend to
the whole world, and embrace, as God had promised to the
patriarch, all the families of the earth. The universalism
which had presided over the primordial ages of the race, and
which had given way for a time to the particularism of the
theocracy, was about to reappear in a more elevated form and
armed with new powers, capable of subduing the Gentile
world. But there was needed an exceptional agent for this
extraordinary work. The appearing of Jesus had paved the
way for it, but had not yet been able to accomplish it. The
twelve Palestinian apostles were not fitted for such a task.
We have found, in studying Paul's origin and character, that
he was the man specially designed and prepared beforehand.
And unless we are to regard the work which he accomplislied,
which Eenan calls " the capital event in the history of the
world," as accidental, we must consider the act whereby he
was enrolled in the service of Christ, and called to this work,
as one directly willed of God, and worthy of being effected by
His immediate interposition. Christ Himself, with a strong
hand and a stretched-out arm, when the hour struck, laid hold
of the instrument which the Father had chosen for Him.
These thoughts in their entirety form precisely the contents of
the preamble to the Epistle which we propose to study (Eom.
i. 1-5).

What passed in the soul of Saul during the three days
which followed this violent disturbance, he himself tells us
ia the beginning of chap. vi. of the Epistle to the Eomans.
This passage, in which we hear the immediate echo of the
Damascus experience, answers our question in the two words :
* Vie de J4sm, p. 1.

16 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. 1.

A death, and a resurrection. The death was that of the self-
idolatrous Saul, death to his own righteousness, or, what comes
to the same thing, to the law. Whither had he been led
by his impetuous zeal for the fulfilling of the law ? To make
war on God, and to persecute the Messiah and His true
people ! Some hidden vice must certainly cleave to a self-
righteousness cultivated so carefully, and which led him to
a result so monstrous. And that vice he now discerned
clearly. In wishing to establish his own righteousness, it was
not God, it was himself whom he had sought to glorify. The
object of his adoration was his ego, which by his struggles and
victories he hoped to raise to moral perfection, with the view
of being able to say in the end : Behold this great Babylon
which I have built ! The disquietude which had followed him
on this path, and driven him to a blind and bloody fanaticism,
was no longer a mystery to him. The truth of that declara-
tion of Scripture, which he had till now only applied to the
Gentiles, was palpable in his own case. " There is not a just
man, no, not one" (Eom. iii. 10). The great fact of the
corruption and condemnation of the race, even in the best of
its representatives, had acquired for him the evidence of a
personal experience. This was to him that death which he
afterwards described in the terms : " I through the law am
dead to the law " (Gal. ii. 19).

But, simultaneously with this death, there was wrought in
him a resurrection. A justified Saul appeared in the sphere
of his consciousness in place of the condemned Saul, and by
the working of the Spirit this Saul became a new creature in
Christ. Such is the forcible expression used by Paul himself
to designate the radical change which passed within him
(2 Cor. V. 17).

Accustomed as he was to the Levitical sacrifices demanded
by the law for every violation of legal ordinances, Saul had
no sooner experienced sin within him in all its gravity, and
with all its consequences of condemnation and death, than he
must also have felt the need of a more efficacious expiation
than that which the blood of animal victims can procure.
The bloody death of Jesus, who had just manifested Himself
to him in His glory as the Christ, then presented itself to his
view in its true light. Instead of seeing in it, as hitherto,

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 17

the justly-deserved punishment of a false Christ, he recognised
in it the great expiatory sacrifice offered by God Himself to
wash away the sin of the world and his own. The portrait
of the Servant of Jehovah drawn by Isaiah, of that unique
person on whom God lays the iniquity of all ... he now
understood to whom he must apply it. Already the interpre-
tations in the vulgar tongue, which accompanied the reading
of the Old Testament in the synagogues, and which were
afterwards preserved in our Targums, referred such passages
to the Messiah. In Saul's case the veil fell ; the cross was
transfigured before him into the instrument of the world's
salvation ; and the resurrection of Jesus, which had become a
palpable fact since the Lord had appeared to him bodily, was
henceforth the proclamation made by God Himself of the
justification of humanity, the monument of the complete
amnesty offered to our sinful world. " My righteous Servant
shall justify many," were the words of Isaiah, after having
described the resurrection of the Servant of Jehovah as the
sequel of His voluntary immolation. Saul now contemplated
with wonder and adoration the fulfilment of this promise,
the accomplishment of this work. The new righteousness was
before him as a free gift of God in Jesus Christ. There was
nothing to be added to it. It was enough to accept and rest
on it in order to possess the blessing which he had pursued
through so many labours and sacrifices, peace with God.

He entered joyfully into the simple part of one accepting,
believing. Dead and condemned in the death of the Messiah,
he lived again justified in His risen person. It was on this
revelation, received during the three days at Damascus, that
Saul lived tiU his last breath.

One can understand how, in this state of soul, and as the
result of this inward illumination, he regarded the baptism
in the name of Jesus which Ananias administered to him.
If in Eom. vi. he has presented this ceremony under the
image of a death, burial, and resurrection through the partici-
pation of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus,
he has, in so expressing himself, only applied to all Christians
his own experience in his baptism at Damascus.

To the grace of justification, of which this ceremony was
to him tl;e assured seal, there was added that of regeneration

GODET. « SOM. L

18

INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

by the creative operation of the Spirit, who transformed his
reconciled heart, and produced a new life within it. All the
energy of his love turned to that Christ who had become
his substitute, guilty, in order to become the author of his
righteousness, and to the God who had bestowed on him
this unspeakable gift. Thus there was laid within him the
principle of a true holiness. What had been impossible for
him till then, self-emptying and life for God, was at length
wrought in his at once humble and joyful heart. Jesus, who
had been his substitute on the cross, in order to become his
righteousness, was easily substituted for himself in his heart
in order to become the object of his life. The free obedience
which he had vainly sought to accomplish under the yoke of
the law, became in his grateful heart, through the Spirit of
Christ, a holy reality. And he could henceforth measure the
fuU distance between the state of a slave and that of a child
of God.

From this experience there could not but spring up a new
light on the true character of the institutions of the law.
He had been accustomed to regard the law of Moses as the
indispensable agent of the world's salvation ; it seemed to him
destined to become the standard of life for the whole race,
as it had been for the life of Israel. But now, after the ex-
perience which he had just made of the powerlessness of
this system to justify and sanctify man, the work of Moses
appeared in all its insufficiency. He still saw in it a peda-
gogical institution, but one merely temporary. With the
Messiah, who realized all that he had expected from the law,
the end of the Mosaic discipline was reached. "Ye are
complete in Christ" (Col. ii. 10); what avails henceforth
what was only the shadow of the dispensation of Christ
(CoLii. 16, 17)?

And who, then, was He in whose person and work there
was thus given to him the fulness of God's gifts without the
help of the law ? A mere man ? Saul remembers that the
Jesus who was condemned to death by the Sanhedrim was so
condemned as a blasphemer, for having declared Himself the
Son of God. This affirmation had hitherto seemed to him
the height of impiety and imposture. Now the same affirma-
tion, taken with the view of the sovereign majesty of Him

CHAP. I.] THE AFOSTLE ST. PAUL. 19

whom he heheld on the way to Damascus, stamps this being
with a divine seal, and makes him bend the knee before His
sacred person. He no longer sees in the Messiah merely a
son of David, but the Son of God.

With this change in his conception of the Christ there is
connected another not less decisive change in his conception
of the Messiah's work. So long as Paul had seen nothing
more in the Messiah than the son of David, he had under-
stood His work only as the glorification of Israel, and the
extension of the discipline of the law to the whole world.
But from the time that God had revealed to him in the
person of this son of David according to the flesh (Kom.
i. 2, 3) the appearing of a divine being. His own Son, his
view of the Messiah's work grew with that of His person.
The son of David might belong to Israel only ; but the Son of
God could not have come here below, save to be the Saviour
and Lord of all that is called man. Were not all human
distinctions effaced before such a messenger ? It is this
result which Paul himself has indicated in those striking
words of the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 16) ; "When it
pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and
called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me,^ that I might
'preach Him among the heathen . . ." His Son, the heathen :
these two notions were necessarily correlative ! The revelation
of the one must accompany that of the other. This relation
between the divinity of Christ and the universality of His king-
dom is the key to the preamble of the Epistle to the Piomans.

The powerlessness of the discipline of the law to save
man, the freeness of salvation, the end of the Mosaic economy
through the advent of the Messianic salvation, the divinity of the
Messiah, the universal destination of His work, — all these ele-
ments of Paul's new religious conception, of his gospel, to quote
the phrase twice used in our Epistle (ii. 16, xvi. 23),^ were thus

' Baur and his school have used the phrase in me to set aside the idea of aii
outward revelation in the matter of his conversion. Not only would this in-
terpretation make Paul contradict himself, as we have shown, but, moreover, it
mistakes the real bearing of the phrase in me. It denotes not the fact of the
appearance, but the whole inner process connected with it, and which we have
sought to reproduce in these pages. The revelation of the Son in Paul's heart is
not identical with His visible appearing ; it was the consequence of it.

^ Elsewhere only in 2 Tim. iL i.

20

INTRODUCTION, [CHAP. u

involved in the very fact of his conversion, and became more
or less directly disentangled as objects of consciousness in that
internal evolution which took place under the light of the
Spirit during the three days following the decisive event.
What the light of Pentecost had been to the Twelve as the
sequel of the contemplation of Jesus on the earth, which
they had enjoyed for three years, that, the illumination of
those three days following the sudden contemplation of the
glorified Lord, was to St. Paul.

Everything is connected in this masterpiece of grace
(1 Tim. L 16). Without the external appearance, the pre-
vious moral process in Paul would have exhausted itself in
vain efforts, and only resulted in a withering blight. And,
on the contrary, without the preparatory process and the
spiritual evolution which followed the appearance, it -would
have been with this as with that resurrection of which
Abraham spoke, Luke xvi. 31: "If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither would they believe though one rose from
the dead." The moral assimilation being wanting, the sight
even of the Lord would have remained unproductive capital
both for Paul and the world.

III. Jlis ApostlesMp.

St. Paul became an apostle at the same time as a believer.
The exceptional contemporaneousness of the two facts arose
from the mode of his conversion. He himself points to
this feature in 1 Cor. ix. 16, 17. He did not become an
apostle of Jesus, like the Twelve, after being voluntarily
attached to Him by faith, and in consequence of a freely-
accepted call. He was taken suddenly from a state of open
enmity. The divine act whereby he was made a believer
resulted from the choice by which God had designated him to
the apostleship.

The apostleship of St. Paul lasted from twenty-eight to
thirty years ; and as we have seen that Paul had probably
reached his thirtieth year at the time of his conversion, it
follows that this radical crisis must have divided his life into
two nearly equal parts of twenty-eight to thirty years each.

Paul's apostolic career embraces three periods : the first is

CHAP. I.J THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 21

a time of preparation ; it lasted about seven years. The
second is the period of his active apostleship, or his three
great missionary journeys ; it covers a space of fourteen years.
The third is the time of his imprisonments. It includes the
two years of his imprisonment at Cesarea, and the two of his
captivity at Eome, with the half-year's voyage which separated
the two periods ; perhaps there should be added to these four
or five years a last time of liberty, extending to one or two
years, closing with a last imprisonment. Anyhow, the limit
of this third period is the martyrdom which Paul underwent
at Eome, after those five or seven years of final labour.

An apostle by right, from the days following the crisis at
Damascus, Paul did not enter on the full exercise of his
commission all at once, but gradually. His call referred
specially to the conversion of the Gentiles. The tenor of the
message which the Lord had addressed to him by the mouth
of Ananias was this : " Thou shalt bear my name before the
Gentiles, and their kings, and the children of Israel " (Acts
ix. 15). This last particular was designedly placed at the
close. The Jews, without being excluded from Paul's work,
were not the first object of his mission.

In point of fact, it was with Israel that he must commence
his work, and the evangelization of the Jews continued with
him to the end to be the necessary transition to that of the
Gentiles. In every Gentile city where Paul opens a mission,
he begins with preaching the gospel to the Jews in the syna-
gogue. There he meets with the proselytes from among the
Gentiles, and these form the bridge by which he reaches the
purely Gentile population. Thus there is repeated on a small
scale, at every step of his career, the course taken on a grand
scale by the preaching of the gospel over the world. In the
outset, as the historical foundation of the work of Christianiza-
tion, we have the foundation of the Church in Israel by the
labours of Peter at Jerusalem and in Palestine, — such is the
subject of the first part of the Acts (i.-xii.) ; then, like a house
built on this foundation, we have the establishment of the
church among the Gentiles by Paul's labours, — such is the
subject of the second part of the Acts (xiii.-xxviii.).

22 INTRODUCTIOIr. [CHAP. L

Notwithstanding this, Baur has alleged that the course
ascribed to Paul by the author of the Acts, in describing his
foundations among the Gentiles, is historically inadmissible,
because it speaks of exaggerated pains taken to conciliate the
Jews, such as were very improbable on the part of a man
hke St. Paul.^ But the account in the Acts is fully confirmed
on this point by Paul's own declarations (Eom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10).
In these passages the apostle says, when speaking of the two
great facts, salvation in Christ and final judgment : " To the
Jows firsC He thus himself recognises the right of priority
which belongs to them in virtue of their special calling, and
of the theocratic preparation which they had enjoyed. From
the first to the last day of his labours, Paul ceased not to
pay homage in word and deed to the prerogative of Israel.

There is nothing wonderful, therefore, in the fact related in
the Acts (x. 20), that Paul began immediately to preach in
the Jewish synagogues of Damascus. Thence he soon ex-
tended his labours to the surrounding regions of Arabia.
According to Gal. i. 17, 18, he consecrated three whole years
to those remote lands. The Acts sum up this period in the
vague phrase "many days" (ix. 23). For the apostle it
doubtless formed a time of mental concentration and personal
communion wdth the Lord, which may be compared with the
years which the apostles passed with their Master during His
earthly ministry. But we are far from seeing in this sojourn
a time of external inactivity. The relation between Paul's
words, GaL i. 16, and the following verses, does not permit us
to doubt that Paul also consecrated these years to preaching.
The whole first chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians rests
on the idea that Paul did not wait to begin preaching the
gospel till he had conferred on the subject with the apostles
at Jerusalem, and received their instructions. On the con-
trary, he had already entered on his missionary career when
for the first time he met with Peter.

After his work in Arabia, Paul returned to Damascus, where
his activity excited the fury of the Jews to the highest pitch.
The city was at that time under the power of Aretas, king of
Arabia. We do not know the circumstances which had with-
drawn it for the time from the Eoman dominion, nor how

* Paulm, 2d ed. I. pp. 368, 369.

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 23

many years this singular state of things lasted. These are
interesting archaeological questions which have not yet found
their entire solution. Nevertheless, the fact of the temporary
possession of Damascus by EJing Aretas or Hareth at this very
time cannot be called in question, even apart from the history
of the Acts.^

At the close of this first period of evangelization, Paul felt
the need of making the personal acquaintance of Peter. With
this view he repaired to Jerusalem. He stayed with him
fifteen days. It was not that Paul needed to learn the gospel
in the school of this apostle. If such had been his object, he
would not have delayed three whole years to come seeking
this instruction. But we can easily understand how im-
portant it was for him at length to confer with the principal
witness of the earthly life of Jesus, though he knew that he
had received from the Lord Himself the knowledge of the
gospel (Gal. i. 11, 12). What interest must he have felt in
the authentic and detailed account of the facts of the ministry
of Jesus, an account which he could not obtain with certainty
except from such lips ! Witness the facts which he recites in
1 Cor. XV., and the sayings of our Lord which he quotes here
and there in his Epistles and discourses (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 10;
Acts XX. 35).

Por two weeks, then, Paul conferred with the apostles
(Acts ix. 27, 28); the indefinite phrase: the apostles, used in
the Acts, denotes, according to the more precise account given
in the Epistle to the Galatians, Peter and James. Paul's
intention was to remain some time at Jerusalem ; for, notwith-
standing the risk which he ran, it seemed to him that the
testimony of the former persecutor would produce more effect
here than anywhere else. But God would not have the in-
strument which He had prepared so carefully for the salvation
of tlie Gentiles to be violently broken by the rage of the Jews,
and to share the lot of the dauntless Stephen. A vision of
the Lord, which Paul had in the temple, warned him to leave
the city immediately (Acts xxii. 17 et seq.). The apostles
conducted him to the coast at Cesarea. Thence he repaired —

^ The fact is established by the interniption of the Roman coins of Damascus
nnder Caligula and Claudius, and by the existence of a coin of this city stamped
•'of Aretas the Philhellene" (see Renan, Les Apdtres, p. 175).

24 INTEODUCTION. [CHAP /.

the history in the Acts does not say how (ix. 30), but from
GaL i. 21 we should conclude that it was by land — to Syria,
and thence to Tarsus, his native city ; and there, in the midst
of his family, he awaited new directions from the Lord.

He did not wait in vain. After the martyrdom of Stephen,
a number of believers from Jerusalem, from among the Greek-
speaking Jews {the Hellenists), fleeing from the persecution
which raged in Palestine, had emigrated to Antioch, the capital
of Sjo-ia. In their missionary zeal they had overstepped the
limit which had been hitherto observed by the preachers of
the gospel, and addressed themselves to the Greek population.^
It was the first time that Christian effort made way for itself
among Gentiles properly so called. Divine grace accompanied
the decisive step. A numerous and lively church, in which
a majority of Greek converts were associated with Christians
of Jewish origin, arose in the capital of Syria. In the account
given of the founding of this important church by the author of
the Acts (xi. 20-24), there is a charm, a fascination, a freshness,
which are to be found only in pictures drawn from nature.

The apostles and the church of Jerusalem, taken by surprise,
sent Barnabas to the spot to examine more closely this un-
precedented movement, and give needed direction. Then
Barnabas, remembering Saul, whom he had previously intro-
duced to the apostles at Jerusalem, went in search of him to
Tarsus, and brought him to this field of action, worthy as it
was of such a labourer. Between the church of Antioch and
Paul the apostle there was formed from that hour a close
union, the magnificent fruit of which was the evangelization of
the world.

After labouring together for a whole year at Antioch,
Barnabas and Saul were sent to Jerusalem to carry aid to the
poor believers of that city. This journey, which coincided
with the death of the last representative of the national
sovereignty of Israel, Herod Agrippa (Acts xii.), certainly took
place in the year 44 ; for this is the date assigned by the

» The received reading : to the Hellenists, absolutely falsifies the meaning of
the passage (Acts xi. 20). It has already been corrected in our translations
(Fr . . English Qreciam, should be Greeks) ; the reading should be : to the
JieUenes, according to the oldest manuscripts {Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, etc.).
and according to the context, which imperatively demands the mention of a fact
01 a wholly new character.

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUT4. 25

detailed account of Joseplius to the death of this sovereign.
It was also about this time, under Claudius, that the great
famine took place with which this journey was connected,
according to the Acts. Thus we have here one of the surest
dates in the life of St. Paul. No doubt this journey to
Jerusalem is not mentioned in the first chapter of Galatians
among the sojourns made by the apostle in the capital which
took place shortly after his conversion, and to explain this
omission some have thought it necessary to suppose that
Barnabas arrived alone at Jerusalem, while Paul stayed by the
way. The text of the Acts is not favourable to this explana-
tion (Acts xi. 30, xii. 25). The reason of Paul's silence about
this journey is simpler, for the context of Gal. i., rightly
understood, does not at all demand, as has been imagined, the
enumeration of all the apostle's journeys to Jerusalem in
those early times. It was enough for his purpose to remind
his readers that his first meeting with the apostles had not
taken place till long after he had begun his preaching of the
gospel. And this object was fully gained by stating the date
of his first stay at Jerusalem subsequent to his conversion.
And if he also mentions a later journey (chap, ii), the fact
does not show that it was the second journey absolutely
speaking. He speaks of this new journey (the third in reality),
only because it had an altogether peculiar importance in the
question which formed the object of his letter to the churches
of Galatia.

IL

The second part of the apostle's career includes his three
great missionary journeys, with the visits to Jerusalem which
separate them. With these journeys there is connected the
composition of Paul's most important letters. The fourteen
years embraced in this period must, from what has been said
above, be reckoned from the year 44 (the date of Herod
Agrippa's death) or a little later. Thus the end of the national
royal house of Israel coincided with the beginning of the
mission to the Gentiles. Theocratic particularism beheld the
advent of Christian universalism.

Paul's three missionary journeys have their common point
of departure in Antioch. This capital of Syria was the cradle

26 INTKODUCTION. [CHAP. L

of the mission to the Gentiles, as Jerusalem had been
that of the mission to Israel. After each of his journeys
Paul takes care to clasp by a journey to Jerusalem the
bond which should unite those two works among Gentiles
and Jews. So deeply did he himself feel the necessity of
binding the churches which he founded in Gentile lands to
the primitive apostolic church, that he went the length of
saying : " lest by any means I should run, or had run, in
vain" (Gal ii. 2).

The first journey was made with Barnabas. It did not
embrace any very considerable geographical space ; it extended
only to the island of Cyprus, and the provinces of Asia Minor
situated to the north of that island. The chief importance of
this journey lies in the missionary principle which it in-
augurates in the history of the world. It is to be observed
that it is from this time Saul begins to bear the name of Paul
(Acts xiii. 9). It has been supposed that this change was a
mark of respect paid to the proconsul Sergius Paulus, con-
verted in Cyprus, the first-fruits of the mission to the Gentiles.
But Paul had nothing of the courtier about him. Others have
found in the name an allusion to the spirit of humility — either
to his small stature, or to the last place occupied by him
among the apostles (TraOXo?, in the sense of the Latin paulus,
pauluhcs, the little). This is ingenious, but far-fetched. The
true explanation is probably the following: Jews travelling
in a foreign country liked to assume a Greek or Eoman name,
and readily chose the one whose sound came nearest to their
Hebrew name. A Jesus became a Jason, a Joseph sl Uegesippus,
a Dosthai a Dositheus, an Eliakim an Alkimos. So, no doubt,
Saul became Paul.

Two questions arise in connection with those churches of
southern Asia Minor founded in the course of the first journey.
Are we, with some writers (Niemeyer, Thiersch, Hausrath,
Renan in Saint Paul, pp. 51 and 52), to regard these churches
as the same which Paul afterwards designates by the name of
churches of Galatia, and to which he wrote the Epistle to the
Galatians (Gal. i. 2 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2) ? It is certain that the
southern districts of Asia Minor, Lycaonia, Pisidia, etc., which
were the principal theatre of this first journey, belonged at that
time, administratively speaking (with the exception of Pam-

CHAP. 1.^

THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 27

phylia), to the Eoman province of Galatia. This name, which
had originally designated the northern countries of Asia Minor,
separated from the Black Sea by the narrow province of
Paphlagonia, had been extended by the Eomans a short time
previously to the districts situated more to the south, and
consequently to the territories visited by Paul and Barnabas.
And as it cannot be denied that Paul sometimes uses official
names, he might have done so also in the passages referred to.
This question has some importance, first with a view to
determining the date of the Epistle to the Galatians, and then
in relation to other questions depending on it. According to
our view, the opinion which has just been mentioned falls to
the ground before insurmountable difficulties.

1. The name Galatia is nowhere applied in Acts xiii. and
xiv. to the theatre of the first mission. It does not appear till
later, in the account of the second mission, and only after
Luke has spoken of the visit made by Paul and Silas to the
churches founded on occasion of the first (xvi. 5). When
Luke names Phrygia and Galatia in ver. 6, it is unquestionable
that he is referring to different provinces from those in which
lay the churches founded during the first journey, and which
are mentioned vv. 1-5.

2. In 1 Pet. i. 1, Galatia is placed between Pontus and
Cappadocia, a fact which forbids us to apply the term to
regions which are altoj^ether southern.

o o

3. But the most decisive reason is this : Paul reminds the
Galatians (iv. 13) that it was sickness which forced him to
stay among them, and which thus led to the founding of their
churches. How is it possible to apply this description to
Paul's first mission, which was expressly undertaken with the
view of evangelizing the countries of Asia, whither he repaired
with Barnabas ?

From all this it follows that Paul and Luke used the term
Galatia in its original and popular ^ sense ; that the apostle
did not visit the country thus designated till the beginning of
his second journey, and that, consequently, the Epistle to the
Galatians was not written, as Hausrath thinks, in the course
of the second journey, but during the third, since this Epistle

• 'The inscriptions," says Renan himself, "prove that the old namee
remained " (p. 50),

28

INTRODUCTION. [CITAP. L

assumes that tivo sojourns in Galatia had taken place pre-
viously to its composition.-^

A second much more important question arises when we
inquire what exactly was the theoretic teaching and the
missionary practice of Paul at this period. Since Eiickert's
time, many theologians, Keuss, Sabatier, Hausrath, Klopper,
etc., think that Paul had not yet risen to the idea of the
abrogation of the law by the gospel.^ Hausrath even alleges
that°the object which Paul and Barnabas had in Asia Minor
was not at all to convert the Gentiles — were there not enough
of them, says he, in Syria and Cihcia ? — but that their simple
object was to announce the advent of the Messiah to the
Jevjish communities which had spread to the interior. He
holds that it was the unexpected opposition which their
preaching met with on the part of the Jews, which led the
two missionaries to address themselves to the Gentiles, and to
suppress in their interest the rite of circumcision. To prove
this view of the apostle's teaching in those earliest times, there
are alleged; (1) the fact of the circumcision of Timothy at
this very date (Acts xvi. 3); (2) these words in Gal. v. 11:
" If I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution ?
Then is the offence of the cross ceased ; " (3) the words, 2 Cor.
V. 16 : "Yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh,
yet now henceforth know we Him no more." ^

Let us first examine the view of Hausrath. Is it credible
that the church of Antioch, itself composed chiefly of Chris-
tians of Greek origin and uncircumcised (comp. the very
emphatic account of this fact. Acts xi. 2 0 et seq.), would have
dreamt of drawing the limits supposed by this critic to the
commission given to its messengers ? This would have been
to deny the principle of its own foundation, the free preaching
of the gospel to the Greeks. The step taken by this church
was accompanied with very solemn circumstances (a revelation
of the Holy Spirit, fasting and prayer on the part of the

* " Ye know how on account of sickness I preached the gospel unto you at
the first " {rpirtpav, the first of two times).

« Keuss, Hist, de la th6ol. chr6t. I. 345 et seq. ; Sabatier, UApdtre Paul,
pp. 3-G. Renan in Saint Paul, p. 72, says : " Paul, who in the earliest part of
kia preacJiing, as it seems, preached circumcision, now declared it useless,"

' Conip. especially Klopper, Dan zweyte Sendsclireiben an die Gemeinde zu
Kormth, pp. 286-297.

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 29

whole church, an express consecration by the laying on of
hands, Acts xiii. 1 et seq.). Why all this, if there had not
been the consciousness that they were doing a work excep-
tionally important and in certain respects new ? And instead
of being a step in advance, this work would be in reality, on
the view before us, a retrograde step as compared with what
had already taken place at Antioch itself ! The study of the
general course of the history of the Acts, and of the progress
which it is meant to prove, forces us to the conclusion that
things had come to a decisive moment. The church under-
took for the first time, and with a full consciousness of the
gravity of its procedure, the conquest of the Gentile world.

The question, what at that time was the apostle's view in
regard to the abrogation of the law, presents two aspects,
which it is important to study separately. What did he
think of subjecting the Gentiles to the institutions of the
law ? and did he still hold its validity for believing Jews ?

According to Gal. i. 16, he knew positively from the first
day that if God had revealed His Son to him in so extra-
ordinary a way, it was " that he might proclaim Him among
the Gentiles'' This conviction did not follow his conversion ;
it accompanied it. Why should the Lord have called a new
apostle, in a way so direct and independent of the Twelve, if
it had not been with a view to a new work destined to com-
plete theirs ? It is with a deliberate purpose that Paul, in
the words quoted, does not say the Christ, but His Son. This
latter expression is tacitly contrasted with the name Son of
David, which designates the Messiah only in His particular
:elation to the Jewish people.

Now it cannot be admitted that Paul, knowing his mission
to be destined to the Gentiles, would have commenced it with
the idea of subjecting them to the discipline of the law, and
that it was not till later that he modified this point of view.
According to Gal. i. 1 and 11-19, the gospel which he now
preaches was taught him hy the revelation of Jesus Christ, and
without human interposition. And when did this revelation
take place ? Yer. 1 5 tells us clearly : " when it pleased God
to reveal His Son to him," that is to say, at the time of his
conversion. His mode of preaching the gospel therefore dates
from that point, and we cannot hold, without contradicting his

30 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. 1,

own testimony, that any essential modification took place in
the contents of his preaching between the days following his
conversion and the time when he wrote the Epistle to the
Galatians. Such a supposition, especially when an Epistle is
in question in which he directly opposes the subjection of the
Gentiles to circumcision, would imply a reticence unworthy of
his character. He must have said : It is true, indeed, that at
the first I did not think and preach on this point as I do
now ; but I afterwards changed my view. Facts on all sides
confirm the declaration of the apostle. How, if during the
first period of his apostleship he had circumcised the Gentile
converts, could he have taken Titus uncircumcised to Jeru-
salem ? How could the emissaries who had come from that
city to Antioch have found a whole multitude of believers on
whom they sought to impose circumcision ? How would the
Christians of Cilicia, who undoubtedly owed their entrance
into the church to Paul's labours during his stay at Tarsus,
have still needed to be reassured by the apostles in opposition
to those who wished to subject them to circumcision (Acts
XV. 23, 24) ? Peter in the house of Cornelius does not think
of imposing this rite (Acts x. and xi.) ; and Paul, we are to
suppose, was less advanced than his colleague, and still less
80 than the evangelists who founded the church of Antioch !

It is more difficult to ascertain precisely what Paul thought
at the beginning of his apostleship as to the abolition or
maintenance of the Mosaic law for believing Jews. Eationally
speaking, it is far from probable that so consequent a thinker
as St. Paul, after the crushing experience which he had just
had of the powerlessness of the law either to justify or sanctify
man, was not led to the conviction of the uselessness of legal
ordinances for the salvation not only of Gentiles, but of Jews.
This logical conclusion is confirmed by an express declaration
of the apostle. In the Epistle to the Galatians, ii. 18-20,
there are found the words : " / through the law am dead to the
law, that I might live unto God ; I am crucified with Christ."
If it was through the law that he died to the law, this inner
crisis cannot have taken place till the close of his life under
the law. It was therefore in the very hour when the law
finished its office as a schoolmaster to bring him to Christ,
that this law lost its religious value for his conscience, and

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 31

that, freed from its yoke, he began to live really unto God in
the faith of Christ crucified. This saying, the utterance of his
inmost consciousness, supposes no interval between the time
of his personal breaking with the law (a death) and the begin-
ning of his new life. His inward emancipation was therefore
one of the elements of his conversion.^ It seems to be thought
that the idea of the abrogation of the law was, at the time of
Saul's conversion, a quite unheard-of notion. But what then
had been the cause of Stephen's death ? He had been heard
to say " that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy this temple and
change the institutions which Moses had delivered" (Acts
vi. 13, 14). Among the accusers of Stephen who repeated
such sayings, Saul himseK was one. Stephen, the Hellenist,
had thus reached before Paul's conversion the idea of the
abolition of the law which very naturally connected itself with
the fact of the destruction of the temple, announced, as was
notorious, by Jesus. Many prophetic sayings must have long
before prepared thoughtful minds for this result.* Certain of
the Lord's declarations also implied it more or less directly."
And now by a divine irony Saul the executioner was called to
assert and realize the programme traced by his victim !

The gradual manner in which the Twelve had insensibly
passed from the bondage of the law to the personal school of
Christ, had not prepared them so completely for such a revolu-
tion. And now is the time for indicating the true difference
which separated them from Paul, one of the most difficult of
questions. They could not fail to expect as well as Stephen
and Paul, in virtue of the declarations already quoted, the
abrogation of the institutions of the law. But they had not
perceived in the cross, as Paul did (GaL ii. 19, 20), the
principle of this emancipation. They expected some external
event which would be the signal of this abolition, as well as
of the passage from the present to the future economy ; the
glorious appearing of Christ, for example, which would be as
it were the miraculous counterpart of the Sinaitic promulga-
tion of the law. Prom this point of view it is easy to explain
their expectant attitude as they considered the progress of

* The same result is reached by analysing the passage Phil. iii. 4-8.

* Jer. xxxi. 31 et seq.; Mai. i. 11, etc.

» Mark ii. 18, vii. 15. 16, xiii. 1. 2. ate

32 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I,

Paul's work. On the other hand, we can understand why he,
notwithstanding his already formed personal conviction, did
not feel himself called to insist on the practical application of
the truth which he had come to possess in so extraordinary a
way. The Twelve were the recognised and titled heads of
the church so long as this remained almost wholly the Judeo-
Christian church founded by them. Paul understood the
duty of accommodating his step to theirs. So he did at
Jerusalem in the great council of which we are about to
speak, when he accepted the compromise which guarded the
liberty of the Gentiles, but supported the observances of the
law for Christians who had come from Judaism. And later
still, when he had founded his own churches in the Gentile
world, he did not cease to take account with religious respect
of Judeo-Christian scruples relating to the Mosaic law. But
it was with him a matter of charity, as he has explained
1 Cor. ix. 19-22 ; and this wise mode of action does not
authorize the supposition that at any time after his conversion
his teaching was contrary to the principle so exactly and
logically expressed by him : " Christ is the end of the law "
(Eom. X. 4).

The circumcision of Timothy in Paul's second journey, far
from betraying any hesitation in his mind on this point, is
wholly in favour of our view. Indeed, Paul did not decide
on this step, because he still regarded circumcision as obliga-
tory on believing Jews. The point in question was not
Timothy's salvation, but the influence which this young
Christian might exercise on the Jews who surrounded him :
" Paul took and circumcised him," says the narrative, " hecavse
of the Jews who were in those regions!' If this act had been
dictated by a strictly religious scruple, Paul must have
carried it out much earlier, at the time of Timothy's baptism.
The latter, indeed, was already a Christian when Paul arrived
at Lystra the second time and circumcised him. (" There was
there a disciple" we read in Acts xvi. 1.) At the beginning
of the second journey, Timothy was therefore a believer and a
member of the church, though not circumcised. This fact is
decisive. It was precisely because the legal observance had
become in Paul's estimation a matter religiously indifferent,
that he could act in this respect with entire liberty, and put

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 33

himself, if he thought good, " under the law with those who
were under the law, that he might gain the more." ^ Such
was the course he followed on this occasion.

The words, Gal. v. 11: " If I yet preach circumcision, why-
do I yet suffer persecution ? " on which Eeuss mainly supports
his view, do not warrant the conclusion drawn from them
by means of a false interpretation. Paul is supposed to be
alluding to a calumnious imputation made by his adversaries,
who, it is said, led the Galatians to believe that previously,
and elsewhere than among them, Paul had been quite ready to
impose circumcision on his Gentile converts. Paul, according
to the view in question, is replying to this charge, that if to
the present hour he yet upheld circumcision, as he had really
done in the earliest days after his conversion, the Jews would
not continue to persecute him as they were still doing. But
the reasoning of Paul, thus understood, would assume a fact
notoriously false, namely, that he had only begun to be perse-
cuted by the Jews after he had ceased to make the obligatori-
ness of circumcision one of the elements of his preaching of
the gospel. Now it is beyond dispute that persecution broke
out against Paul immediately after his conversion, and even at
Damascus. It was the same at Jerusalem soon after.^ It is
therefore absolutely impossible that Paul could have thought
for a single instant of explaining the persecutions to which he
was subjected by the Jews, by the fact that he had ceased at
a given point of his ministry to preach circumcision, till then
imposed by him. Besides, if Paul had really been accused in
Galatia of having acted and taught there differently from what
he had done previously and everywhere else, he could not
have confined himself to replying thus in passing, and by a
simple allusion thrown in at the end of his letter, to so serious
a charge. He must have explained himself on this main point
in the beginning in chap. i. and ii., where he treats of all the
questions relating to his person and apostleship.

We therefore regard the proposed interpretation as inadmis-

* 1 Cor. ix. 19-22. — The situation was evidently quite different when it was
attempted to constrain him to circumcise Titus at Jerusalem. Here the ques-
tion oi principle was at stake. In this position there could be no question of
concession.

2 Acts ix. 23-29.
GODET. C KOM. 1.

34 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. L

sible. The change of which the apostle speaks is not one
which had taken place in his system of preaching ; it is a
change which he might freely introduce into it now if he
wished, and one by which he would immediately cause the
persecution to which he was subjected to cease. " If I would
consent to join to my preaching of the gospel that of circum-
cision, for which I was fanatically zealous during the time of
my Pharisaism, the persecution with which the Jews assail
me would instantly cease. Thereby the offence of the cross
would no longer exist in their minds. Transformed into an
auxiliary of Judaism, the cross itself would be tolerated and
even applauded by my adversaries." What does this signify ?
The apostle means, that if he consented to impose circumcision
on those of the Gentiles whom he converted by the preaching
of the cross, the Jews would immediately applaud his mission.
For his conquests in Gentile lands would thus become the
conquests of Judaism itself. In fact, it would please the Jews
mightily to see multitudes of heathen entering the church on
condition that all those new entrants by baptism became at
the same time members of the Israelitish people by circum-
cision. On this understanding it would be the Jewish people
who would really profit by Paul's mission ; it would become
nothing more than the conquest of the world by Israel and for
Israel. The words of Paul which we are explaining are set in
their true light by others which we read in the following
chapter (Gal. vi. 12) : " As many as desire to make a fair show
in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only lest
they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." Certain
preachers therefore, Paul's rivals in Galatia, were using exactly
the cowardly expedient which Paul here rejects, in order to
escape persecution from the Jews. To the preaching of the
cross to the Gentiles they added the obligatoriness of circum-
cision, and the Jews easily tolerated the former in considera-
tion of the advantage which they derived from the latter.
This anti-Christian estimate was probably that of those
intriguers at Jerusalem whom Paul calls, Gal. ii., false brethren
unawares brought in. Christianity, with its power of expan-
sion, became in their eyes an excellent instrument for the
propagation of Judaism. So we find still at the present day
many liberalised Jews applauding the work of the Christian

UHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 35

church in the heathen world. They consider Christianity to
be the providential means for propagating Israelitish mono-
theism, as paving the way for the moral reign of Judaism
throughout the whole world. And they wait with folded arms
till we shall have put the world under tJieir feet. The differ-
ence between them and St. Paul's adversaries is merely that
the latter allowed themselves to act so because of the theo-
cratic promises, while modern Jews do so in name of the
certain triumph to be achieved by their purely rational
religion.

Thus the words of Paul, rightly understood, do not in the
least imply a change which had come over his teaching in
regard to the maintenance of circumcision and the law.

As to the passage 2 Cor. v. 16, we have already seen that
the phrase : knowing Christ tio more after the flesh, does not at
all refer to a new view posterior to his conversion, but describes
the transformation which had passed over his conception of
the Messiah in that very hour.

We are now at the important event of the council of Jem
salem, which stands between the first and second journey.

Subsequently to their mission to Cyprus and Asia Minor,
which probably lasted some years, Paul and Barnabas returned
to Antioch, and there resumed their evangelical work. But
this peaceful activity was suddenly disturbed by the arrival
of certain persons from Jerusalem. These declared to the
believing Gentiles that salvation would not be assured to them
in Christ unless they became members of the Israelitish
people by circumcision. To understand so strange an allega-
tion, we must transport ourselves to the time when it was
given forth. To whom had the Messianic promises been
addressed? To the Jewish people, and to them alone.
Therefore the members of this people alone had the right ta
appropriate them ; and if the Gentiles wished to share them,
the only way open to them was to become Jews. The reason-
ing seemed faultless. On the other hand, Paul understood
well that it cut short the evangelization of the Gentile world,
which would never be made Christian if in order to become
so it was first necessary to be incorporated with the Jewish
nation. But more than all else, the argument appeared to
hin; to be radically vicious, because the patriarchal promises,

36 INTKODUCTION. [CHAP. L

though addressed to the Jews, had a much wider range, and
really concerned the whole world.

Baur asserted that those who maintained the particularistic
doctrine at Antioch represented the opinion of the Twelve,
and Kenan has made himself the champion of this view in
France. Baur acknowledges that the narrative of the Acts
excludes, it is true, such a supposition. For this book
expressly ascribes the lofty pretensions in question to a retro-
grade party, composed of former Pharisees (Acts xv. 1-5), and
puts into the mouth of the apostles the positive disavowal
of such conduct. But the German critic boldly solves this
difficulty, by saying that the author of the Acts has, as a result
of reflection, falsified the history with the view of disguising
the conflict which existed between Paul and the Twelve, and
of making the later church believe that these personages had
lived on the best understanding. What reason can Baur
allege in support of this severe judgment passed on the author
of the Acts ? He rests it on the account of the same event
given by Paul himself in the beginning of Gal. ii., and seeks
to prove that this account is incompatible with that given in
the Acts. As the question is of capital importance in relation
to the beginnings of Christianity, and even for the solution of
certain critical questions relative to the Epistle to the Eomans,
we must study it here more closely. We begin with the
account of Paul in Galatians ; we shall afterwards compare it
with that of the Acts.

According to the former (Gal. ii.), in consequence of th&
dispute which arose at Antioch, Paul, acting under guidance
from on high, determined to go and have the question of the
circumcision of the Gentiles decided at Jerusalem by the
apostles (ver. 1). "A proof," observes Eeuss, " that Paul was
not afraid of being contradicted by the heads of the mother
church."^ This observation seems to us to proceed on a
sounder psychology than that of Kenan, who asserts, on the
contrary, that at Antioch " there was a distrust of the mother
church." It was in the same spirit of confidence that Paul
resolved to take with him to Jerusalem a young Gentile
convert named Titus. The presence of this uncircumcised
member fn the church assemblies was meant to assert

» Hist, de la thiol. chrU. II. p. 310.

CHAP. 1.1 THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 37

triumphantly the principle of liberty. This bold step wonld
have been imprudence itself, if, as Eenan asserts, the church
of Jerusalem had been " hesitating, or favourable to the most
retrograde party."

Paul afterwards (ver. 2) speaks of a conference which he
had with the persons of most repute in the apostolic church,
— these were, as we learn from the sequel, Peter and John
the apostles, and James the Lord's brother, the head of the
council of elders at Jerusalem ; Paul explained to them in
detail (avedifjLijv) the gospel as he preached it among the
Gentiles, free from the enforcement of circumcision and legal
ceremonies generally. He completes the account, ver. 6, by
subjoining that his three interlocutors found nothing to add to
his mode of teaching (ovBep irpoaaviOevTo). In Greek, the
relation between this term added and that which precedes
{communicated) is obvious at a glance. Paul's teaching
appeared to them perfectly sufficient. Paul interrupts himself
at ver. 3, to mention in passing a corroborative and significant
fact. The false hrethren brought in, maintained that Titus
should not be admitted to the church without being circum-
cised. In other circumstances, Paul, in accordance with his
principle of absolute liberty in regard to external rites (1 Cor.
ix. 20), might have yielded to such a demand. But in this
case he refused ; for the question of principle being involved,
it was impossible for him to give way. Titus was admitted
as an uncircumcised member. True, Eenan draws from the
same text an entirely opposite conclusion. According to him,
Paul yielded for the time, and Titus underwent circumcision.
This interpretation, which was TertulHan's, is founded on a
reading which has no authorities on its side except the most
insufficient ; ^ as little can it be maintained in view of the
context. As to the apostles, they must necessarily have
supported Paul's refusal, otherwise a rupture would have been
inevitable. But not only were the bonds between them not
broken ; they were, on the contrary, strengthened. Paul's
apostolic call, with a view to the Gentiles, was expressly
recognised by those three men, the reputed heads of the church
(vv. 7-9) ; Peter in his turn was unanimously recognised as

^ The omission of ovYt, ver. 5, in the Cantabrigiensis, two Codd. of the old Latin
translation, and in some Fathers, excliiAJviUv Greco-Latin authorities.

38 INTRODUCTION. [CIIAP. L

called of God to direct the evangelization of the Jews. Then
the five representatives of the whole church gave one another
the hand of fellowship, thus to seal the unity of the work amid
the diversity of domains. Would this mutual recognition and
this ceremony of association have been possible between Paul
and the Twelve, if the latter had really maintained the doctrine
of the subjection of the Gentiles to circumcision ? St. Paul
in the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 8) makes this declaration :
" Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let
him be accursed ! " Now the contents of this preaching of
the gospel by Paul are also found thus stated in the Epistle
(vv. 2-4) : " Behold, I say unto you, that if ye be circumcised,
Christ shall profit you nothing." And he would have recog-
nised, he, Paul, as coming from God equally with his own, the
apostleship of Peter, and the teaching of Peter (ii. 7, 8), of
Peter preaching circumcision ! The result flowing from Paul's
narrative is not doubtful. The liberty of the Gentiles in
respect of circumcision was expressly recognised at Jerusalem
by the apostles and the church. The narrow Judaizers alone
persisted in their obstinacy, and formed a minority ever more
and more hostile to this apostolic course.

It is less easy to know from Paul's account what was
agreed on in regard to converts from among the Jews. The
apostle's entire silence on this point leads us to suppose that
the question was not once raised. Paul was too prudent to
demand a premature solution on so delicate a point. His
silence indicates that the old practice, according to which
Judeo- Christians continued to observe the law, was tacitly
maintained.

We pass now to the account given in Acts. Luke does
not speak of the revelation which determined Paul to submit
the question to the jurisdiction of the apostles. ISTatural as it
is for Paul to mention this biographical detail, the explanation
of its omission in a history of a more general character is
equally easy.

Acts presents the picture of a plenary assembly of the
church before which the question was discussed, especially by
Peter and James. This account differs from that of Galatians,
ill which we read only of a private conference. Keuss does

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 39

not think that this difference can be explained. But a private
talk between the leaders of two negotiating parties does not
exclude a public meeting in which all interested take part.
After mentioning the exposition which he gave of his teaching,
without saying exactly to whom, ver. 2, Paul adds an explana-
tory remark in the words : " and that privately to them which
we're of reputation." ^ By this remark it would seem that he
desires tacitly to contrast the private conversation which he
relates with some other and more general assembly which the
reader might have in his mind while perusing his narrative.
The conclusion was therefore prepared in the private conver-
sation, and then solemnly confirmed in the plenary council.
Luke's narrative is the complement of Paul's. The interest
of Paul, in his attitude to the Galatians, was to prove the
recognition of his gospel and apostleship by the very apostles
who were being opposed to him ; hence the mention of the
private conference. Luke, wishing to preserve the deeply
interesting and precious document which emanated from the
council of Jerusalem, required above all to narmte the latter.

According to Luke, the speeches of Peter and James con-
clude alike for the emancipation of the Gentiles. This is
perfectly in keeping with the attitude ascribed to them by
St. Paul : " they added nothing to my communication." James
speaks of it in the Acts, at the close of his speech, as a matter
of course, and about which there is no need of discussion,
that as to the Christians of Jewish origin, the obligation to
live conformably to the observances of the law remains as
before. Now we have just seen that this is exactly what
follows from Paul's silence on this aspect of the question.

Finally, in its letter to Gentile believers, the council asks
them to abstain from three things, meats offered to idols,
animals that have been strangled, and impurity (w. 28, 29).
Is not this demand in contradiction to the words of Paul:
they added nothing to me ? No, for the apostolical letter in
the Acts immediately adds ; " From which things if ye keep
yourselves, ye shall do well" The phrase used would have
been very different if it had been meant to express a condition
of salvation added to Paul's teaching. The measure which is

^ Ai is here taken in the same exegetical sense as Eom. iii. 22 {to wit). This ia
also Baur's understanding.

40 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

here called for is so on the ground of the interests of the
church.

In fact, this was the price paid for union between the two
parties of which Christendom was composed. Without the
two former conditions, the life of Gentile believers continued,
in the view of Jewish Christians, to be polluted with idolatry,
and penetrated through and through with malign, and even
diabolical influences.^ As to the third demand, it figures here
because impurity was generally considered among the Gentiles
to be as indifferent, morally speaking, and consequently as
allowable, as eating and drinking (1 Cor. vi 12-14). And
we can the better understand why licentiousness is specially
mentioned in this passage, when we remember that the most
shameless impurities had in a manner their obligatory and
religious part in idolatrous worships.^

As to the delicate question whether this compromise should
be merely temporary, or if it had a permanent value in the
view of the church of Jerusalem, no one even thought of
suggesting the alternative. They moved as the occasion
demanded. Every one thought that he had fulfilled his task
by responding to the necessities of the present situation.
The really important fact was, that the emancipation of the
Gentiles from legal observances was irrevocably recognised
and proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian church. Paul might
assuredly congratulate himself on such a result. For though
Jewish believers remained still tacitly subject to the Mosaic
ritual, no positive decision had been passed on the subject,
and the apostle was too far-seeing not to understand what must

1 According to certain Jewish theories represented "by the Clementine Homilies
(viii. 15), animal food renders man o/jLoViairos {commensal), the table companion
of demons as well as paganism and its diabolical feasts. Blood in particular, as
the vehicle of souls, must be carefully avoided.

' All that has been said with the view of identifying these three demands laid
down at Jerusalem with the so-called Noachian commandments, as well as the
conclusions drawn therefrom, — for example, the assimilation of the new converts
to the former Gentile proselytes (see Eeuss especially),— has not the slightest
foundation in the text. One is forced, besides, by this parallel to give a distorted
meaning to the word Topviia, unchastity, as if in this decree it denoted marriages
within certain degrees of relationship which were forbirMen by the law and
allowed in heathendom. But there is nothing heie to warrant us in giving to
this word so frequently used a different meaning from that which it has through-
out the whole of the New Testament *

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. tAUL, 41

eventually follow the liberty granted to the Gentiles. Once
these were set free from the Mosaic discipline, it was thereby
established that the Messianic salvation was not bound up
with the institutions of the law. Entrance into the church
was independent of incorporation with Israel All that Paul
desired was implicitly contained in this fact. Levitical ritual
thus descended to the rank of a simple national custom. By
remaining faithful to it, believing Jews kept up their union
with the rest of the elect people, an indispensable condition of
the mission to Israel, till the day when God, by a striking
dispensation, should Himself put an end to the present order
of things. Paul was too prudent not to content himself with
such a result, the consequences of which the future could not
fail to develope.

The conclusion to which we are thus brought, on this
important and difficult question, is in its general features at
one with that which has been recently stated by three men
of undoubted scientific eminence, Weizsacker, Harnack, and
even Keim. The first, in his admirable treatise on the church
of Corinth,^ thus expresses himself on the question : " The
apostles remained Jews, and confined themselves to the
mission among the Jews. But they granted to Gentile
Christianity so thorough a recognition, that we must conclude
that their religious life had its centre of gravity no longer in
the law, but in their faith as such. ... In fact, Paul never
reckoned the Twelve among his adversaries. He always dis-
tinguished them expressly from these, both before the conflict,
by choosing them as arbiters, and after it" (Gal. ii). Harnack,
the man of our day who perhaps best knows the second
century, thus expressed himself recently: "The apocalyptic
writings are the last strongholds within which a once power-
ful party still entrenches itself, whose watchword was : either
Judeo-Christian or Gentile-Christian (the Tubingen school).
The influence of Judeo - Christianity on the catholic church
in the course of formation, must henceforth be estimated at
an almost inappreciable quantity."^ Keim, in a recent work,^

- Jahrb. j'iir deutsche Theologie, 1876.

* TJieol. Literatuneitung (review of the publication of the Ascension of
Isaiah, by Dillmann), 1877.
^ Au8 dem Urchristenihum, I. pp. 64-89.

42 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

demonstrates the general harmony of the narratives given by
Paul and Luke, except on one point (the conditions imposed
on Gentile-Christians in the Acts, which he holds to be a gloss
added to the original account); and he appreciates almost
exactly as we do the mutual attitude of Paul and the Twelve.
Impartial science thus returns to the verdict of old Irenaeus :
" The apostles granted us liberty, us Gentiles, referring us to
the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; but they themselves con-
formed piously to the institutions of the law established by
Moses." ^ The exposition of Kenan, given under Baur's
influence, is a mere fancy picture.

Ee turning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas took wdth them
Silas, one of the eminent men belonging to the church of
Jerusalem, who was charged with delivering the reply of the
council to the churches of Syria and Cilicia.^ Soon after-
wards Paul set out with Silas on his second missionary journey ^
after separating from Barnabas on account of Mark, the cousin
of the latter (Col. iv. 10). The texts give no ground for
supposing that this rupture took place on account of any
difference of view regarding the law, as some critics of a fixed
idea have recently alleged. Barnabas and Paul had gone
hand in hand in the conferences at Jerusalem, and the sequel
will prove that this harmony continued after their separation.
Paul and Silas together crossed the interior of Asia Minor,
visiting the churches founded in the course of the first journey.
Paul's destination now was probably Ephesus, the religious
and intellectual centre of the most cultivated part of Asia.
But God had decided otherwise. The country whose hour had
struck was Greece, not Asia Minor ; Paul understood this later.
The two heralds of the gospel were arrested for some time, by
an illness of St. Paul, in the regions of Galatia. This country,
watered by the river Halys, was inhabited by the descendants
of a party of Celts who had passed into Asia after the inroad of
the Gauls into Italy and Greece, about 280 B.C. This illness
led to the founding of the churches of Galatia (Gal. iv. 14).

' Adv. Hair. iii. 12. 16: Gentibus quidem (apostoli) libere agere permittebant,
concedentes noa spiHtui sancto; . . . ipsi religiose agebant circa dispositionem
legis (jucB est secundum Mosem.

2 The arguments of M. Renan {St. Paul, p. 92) against the authenticity of
this, the oldest document of the church, are too easily refuted to rec^uire that
we should examine them in this sketch.

I

CHAP. L] the apostle ST. PAUL. 43

When they resumed their journey the two missionaries were
arrested in the work of preaching by some inward hindrance,
which prevented them from working anywhere. They thus
found themselves led without premeditation to Troas, on the
Egean Sea. There the mystery w^as cleared up. Paul learned
from a vision that he was to cross the sea, and, beginning with
Macedonia, enter on the evangelization of Europe. He took
this decisive step in company with Silas, young Timothy,
whom he had associated with him in Lycaonia, and, finally,
the physician Luke, who seems to have been at Troas at that
very time. This is at least the most natural explanation of
the form we which here meets us in the narrative of the Acts
(xvi. 10). The same form ceases, then reappears later as the
author of the narrative is separated from the apostle, or takes
his place again in his company (xx. 5, xxi. 1 et seq., xxviiL
1 et seq.). Kenan concludes from the passage, xvi. 10, with-
out the least foundation, that Luke was of Macedonian
extraction. We believe rather (comp. p. 24) that he was a
native of Antioch. Such also is the tradition found in the
Clementine Recognitions and in Eusebius.

In a short time there were founded in Macedonia the
churches of Philippi, Amphipolis, Thessalonica, and Berea.
St. Paul was persecuted in all these cities, generally at the
instigation of the Jews, who represented to the Eoman
authorities that the Christ preached by him was a rival of
Caesar. Constantly driven forth by this persecution, he
•passed southwards, and at length reached Athens. There
he gave an account of his doctrine before the Areopagus.
Thereafter he established himself at Corinth, and during a
stay of about two years, he founded in the capital of Achaia
one of his most flourishing churches. We may even conclude
from the inscription of 2 Corinthians (i. 1 : " To the church
of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are
in all Achaia'') that numerous Christian communities were
formed in the country districts round the metropolis.

After having concluded this important work, the founding
of the churches of Greece, Paul w^ent up to Jerusalem. There
is mention in the Acts of a vow fulfilled before his departure
from Greece (xviii. 18). By whom? By Aquila, Paul's
companion 1 So some commentators have held. But if

44 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

Aquila is the nearest subject, Paul is the principal subject
of the clause. Was the religious act called a vow contrary
to the spirituality of the apostle ? Why should it have been
so more than a promise or engagement (comp. 1 Tim. vi.
12-14)? Anj^how, Acts xxi. shows us how he could find
himself in a state of life so full of complications that Christian
charity constrained him to find his way out of it by con-
cessions of an external nature. From Jerusalem Paul- went
to Antioch, the cradle of the mission to the Gentiles.

Here we must place an incident, the character of which
has been not less misrepresented by criticism than that of the
conferences at Jerusalem. Peter was then beginning his
missionary tours beyond Palestine ; he had reached Antioch.
Barnabas, after visiting the Christians of Cyprus along with
Mark, had also returned to this church. These two men at
first made no scruple of visiting the Gentile members of the
church, and eating with them both at private meals (as had
been done before by Peter at the house of Cornelius) and at
the love -feasts. This mode of acting was not strictly in
harmony with the agreement at Jerusalem, according to which
believers of Jewish origin were understood to keep tlie Mosaic
law. But, following the example of Christ Himself, they
thought that the moral duty of brotherly communion should,
in a case of competing claims, carry it over ritual observance.
Peter probably recalled such sayings of Jesus as these : " Not
that which goeth into the man defileth the man, but that
which goeth forth from the man ; " or, " Have ye not heard
what David did when he was an hungered, and they that
were with him . . . ? " (Matt. xii. 1-4). Finally, might he
not apply here the direction which he had received from
above at the time of his mission to Cornelius (Acts x. 10 et
seq.) 1 As to Barnabas, since his mission in Asia, he must
have been accustomed to subordinate Levitical prescriptions
to the duty of communion with the Gentiles. Thus all went
on to the general satisfaction, when there arrived at Antioch
some believers of Jerusalem, sent by James. Their mission
was, not to lay more burdens on the Gentiles, but to examine
whether the conduct of Judeo-Christians continued true to
the compromise made at Jerusalem. Now, according to the
rigorous interpretation of that document, Peter and Barnabas,

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 45

both of them Jews by birth, were at fault. They were
therefore energetically recalled to order by the newcomers.

We know Peter's character from the Gospel history. He
allowed himself to be intimidated. Barnabas, whose natural
easiness of disposition appears in the indulgence he showed
to his cousin Mark, could not resist the apostle's example.
Both were carried the length of breaking gradually with the
Gentile converts.

Here we have a palpable proof of the insufficiency of the
compromise adopted by the council of Jerusalem, and can
understand why Paul, while accepting it as a temporary ex-
pedient (Acts xvi. 4), soon let it fall into abeyance.^ This
agreement, which, while freeing the Gentiles from Mosaic
observances, still kept Jewish Christians under the yoke of
the law, was practicable no doubt in churches exclusively
Judeo-Christian, like that of Jerusalem. But in churches like
those of Syria, where the two elements were united, the
rigorous observance of this agreement must result in an
external separation of the two elements, and the disruption of
the church. Was this really meant by James, from whom those
people came ? If it is so, we ought to remember that James
was the brother of Jesus, but not an apostle; that blood
relationship to the Lord was not by any means a guarantee
of infallibility, and that Jesus, though He had appeared to
James to effect his conversion, had not confided to him the
direction of the church. He was raised to the head of the
flock of Jerusalem, — nothing more. But it is also possible
that the newcomers had gone beyond their instructions.
Paul instantly measured the bearing of the conduct of his
two colleagues, and felt the necessity of striking a decisive
blow. He had gained at Jerusalem the recognition of the
liberty of the Gentiles. The moment seemed to him to have
arrived for deducing all the practical consequences logically
flowing from the decision which had been come to, and with-
out which that decision became illusory. Pounding on the
previous conduct of Peter himself at Antioch, he showed him
his inconsistency. He who for weeks had eaten with the
Gentiles and like them, was now for forcing them, unless they

^ This is one of the principal reasons for "which M. Renan attacks its authen-
ticity. The reason la not a solid one, as onr account shovs.

46 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. L

chose to break with him, to place themselves under the yoke
of the law, a result which had certainly not been approved at
Jerusalem ! Then Paul took advantage of this circumstance
at last to develope openly the contents of the revelation which
he had received, to wit, that the abrogation of the law is
involved in principle in the fact of the cross when rightly
understood, and that it is vain to wait for another manifesta-
tion of the divine will on this point : "I am crucified with
Christ ; and by that very fact dead to the law and alive unto
God" (GaL ii. 19, 20). Baur and his school, and Eenan
with them, think that this conflict proves a contrariety of
principles between the two apostles. But Paul's words imply
the very reverse. He accuses Peter of not walking uprightly ^
according to the truth of the gospel, — that is to say, of being
carried away by the fear of man. This very rebuke proves that
Paul ascribes to Peter a conviction in harmony with his own,
simply accusing him as he does of being unfaithful to it in
practice. It is the same with Barnabas. For Paul says of
him, that he was carried away into the same hypocrisy. Thus
the incident related by Paul fully establishes the conclusion
to which we had come, viz. that Peter did no more than Paul
regard the observance of the law as a condition of salvation,
even for the Jews. And it is evidently to draw this lesson
from it that Paul has related the incident with so much
detail. For what the disturbers of the Gentile Christian
churches alleged was precisely the example and authority of
the Twelve.

After this conflict the apostle entered on his third journey.
This time he realized the purpose which he had formed when
starting on his previous journey, that of settling at Ephesus,
and carrying the gospel to the heart of the scientific and
commercial metropolis of Asia Minor. He passed through
Galatia. He found the churches of this country already dis-
turbed by the solicitations of some Judaizing emissary, who
had come no doubt from Antioch, and who by means of
certain adepts sought to introduce circumcision and the other
Mosaic rites among the Christians of the country. For the
time being Paul allayed the storm, and, as Luke says (Acts
xviii. 23), "he strengthened all the disciples" in Galatia and
Phiygia. But this very word proves to us how much their

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 47

minds had been shaken. At Ephesus there awaited him his
faithful friends and fellow - workers, Aquila and his wife
Priscilla ; they had left Corinth with him, and had settled
in Asia undoubtedly to prepare for him. The two or three
years which Paul passed at Ephesus form the culminating
point of his apostolical activity. This time was in his life
the counterpart of Peter's ministry at Jerusalem after
Pentecost. The sacred writer himself seems in his narrative
to have this parallel in view (comp. Acts xix. 11, 12 with
V. 15, 16). A whole circle of flourishing churches, that very
circle which is symbolically represented in the apocalyptic
description by the image of seven golden candlesticks with
the Lord standing in the midst of them, rises amid those
idolatrous populations : Ephesus, Miletus, Smyrna, Laodicea,
Hierapolis, Colosse, Thyatira, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos,
and other churches besides, mentioned in the writings of the
second century. The work of Paul at this period was marked
by such a display of the power of the Holy Spirit, that at
the end of those few years paganism felt itself seriously
threatened in those regions, as is proved by the tumult
excited by the goldsmith Demetrius.

But this so fruitful period of missionary activity was at
the same time the culminating point of his contention with
his Judaizing adversaries. After his passage through Galatia
they had redoubled their efforts in those regions. These
persons, as we have seen, did not oppose the preaching of the
cross. They even thought it well that Paul should Christianize
the Gentile world, provided it were to the profit of Mosaism.
In their view the law was the real end, the gospel the means.
It was the reversal of the divine plan. Paul rejected the
scheme with indignation, though it was extremely weU fitted
to reconcile hostile Jews to the preaching of Christ. Not
being able to make him bend, they sought to undermine his
authority. They decried him personally, representing him as
a disciple of the apostles, who had subsequently lifted his
heel against his masters. It is to this charge that Paul
replies in the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians.
Next, they maintained the permanence of the law. Such is
the doctrine which Paul overthrows in chap. iii. and iv., by
showing the temporary and purely preparatory character ul

48 INTRODUCTION. [CHA.P. L

the Mosaic dispensation. Finally, they denied that a doctrine
severed from all law could secure the moral life of its
adherents. Such is the subject of the last two chapters,
which show how man's sanctification is provided for by the
life-giving operation of the Holy Spirit, the consummation of
justification, much better than by his subjection to legal
prohibitions. This letter was written shortly after Paul's
arrival at Ephesus (comp. the phrase: so soon, i. 6). The
passage, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, seems to prove that it succeeded in re-
establishing the authority of the apostle and the supremacy
of the gospel in Galatia.

But the Judaizing emissaries followed Paul at every step.
Macedonia does not seem to have presented a favourable soil
for their attempts; they therefore threw themselves upon
Achaia. They were careful here not to speak of circumcision
or prescriptions about food. They knew that they had to do
with Greeks; they sought to flatter their philosophical and
literary tastes. A speculative gospel was paraded before the
churches. Next, doubts were sown as to the reality of the
apostleship of Paul, and by and by even as to the upright-
ness and purity of his character. The Pirst Epistle to the
Corinthians gives us all throughout, as Weizsacker has well
shown, the presentiment of a threatening storm, but one which
the apostle seeks to prevent from bursting. Severe allusions
are not wanting ; but the didactic tone immediately becomes
again the prevailing one. It is in the second letter that the
full violence of the struggle is revealed. This letter contains
numerous allusions to certain personal encounters of the
utmost gravity, but posterior to the sending of the first. It
obliges the attentive reader to suppose a sojourn made by
Paul at Corinth between our two letters preserved in the
canon, and even a lost intermediate letter posterior to this
visit.^ The interval between the dates of First and Second
Corinthians must, if it is so, have been more considerable
than is usually held; the general chronology of Paul's life
does not, as we shall see, contradict this view. The lost
letter intermediate between our two canonical Epistles must

* Such at least is the conviction to which we have been led by the attentive
study of the texts, in more or less entire harmony with several critics of our

CHAP, r.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 49

have been written under the influence of the most painful
experiences and the keenest emotions. Paul then saw him-
self for some time on the eve of a total rupture with that
church of Corinth which had been the fruit of so many
labours. Led away by his adversaries, it openly refused him
obedience. Some dared to raise the gravest imputations
against his veracity and disinterestedness ; his apostleship
was audaciously ridiculed; Paul was charged with being
ambitious and boastful ; he pretended to preach the gospel
without charge, but he nevertheless filled his purse from it
by means of his messengers ; all this was said of the apostle
of the Corinthians at Corinth itself, and the church did not
shut the mouths of the insolent detractors who spoke thus !
But who then were they who thus dared to challenge the
apostle of the Gentiles in the midst of his own churches ?
Paul in his Second Epistle calls them ironically apostles by
way of eminence [chief est, Eng. transl.]. This was, no doubt,
one of the titles with which their adherents saluted thorn.
Baur and his school do not fear to apply this designation to
the Twelve in Paul's sense of it. "These apostles hy way of
eminence" says the leader of the school,^ " undoubtedly denote
the apostles themselves, whose disciples and delegates the
false apostles of Corinth professed to be." Hilgenfeld says
more pointedly still : ^ " The apostles by way of eminence can
be no other than the original apostles." This opinion has
spread and taken root. We should like to know what
remains thereafter of the apostleship of Paul and of the
Twelve, nay, of the mission of Jesus Himself? Happily,
sound criticism treats such partial and violent assertions
more and more as they deserve. We have already stated the
conclusion which has now been reached on this question by
such men as Weizsacker, Keim, Harnack. It is easy, indeed
to prove that the phrase: "apostles by way of eminence/'
which St. Paul employs, borrowing it ironically from the
language used at Corinth, could not designate the Twelve.
1. We read, 2 Cor. xi. 6, that Paul was described at Corinth
as a man of the commonalty (^ISuorr)^, rude, Eng. transl.) in
language, as compared with the superior apostles. Now,
what reasonable man could have put the Twelve above

1 Paulus, 1. 309. 2 £ij^i iji'g jy^ jj^ p^ 298.

GODET. D EOM. L

60 INTKODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

Paul in the matter of speech? Comp. Acts iv. 13, where
the apostles are called nten of the commonalty, or unlettered,
while Paul was regarded as a man of high culture and vast
knowledge (Acts xxvi. 24). 2. If it had been wished to
designate the Twelve by the phrase : " the more eminent
apostles," the very word would have made a place beneath
them for an apostle of an inferior order. And for whom, if
not for Paul ? Now, his adversaries were not content at this
time to make him an apostle of an inferior order ; they con-
trasted him with the Twelve, as a false apostle with the only
true. We are thus led to conclude that the apostles 2^ar
excellence, who were being exalted at Corinth in order to
blacken Paul, were no other than those lofty personages from
Jerusalem who, in the transactions related Acts xv. and
Gal. ii., had openly resisted the apostles, and affected to give
law to them as well as to the whole church, those very
persons whom Paul has designated in Galatians as false
brethren brought in. In Acts it is related that after Pente-
cost many priests (vi. 7) and Pharisees (xv. 5) entered the
church. These new Christians of high rank and great
theological knowledge brought with them their pretensions
and prejudices, and they ill brooked the authority of simple
and uncultured men like the Twelve. They looked upon
them as narrow-minded. They treated them with disdain;
and from the height of their theological erudition thought it
deplorable that so glorious a work, from which they might
have drawn so much advantage, had fallen into such poor
hands. They therefore tried audaciously to snatch the
direction of the church from the apostles. Thus, apostles by
way of eminence, arch - apostles, far from being a name
intended to identify them with the Twelve, was rather meant
to exalt them above the apostles. It was they who, after the
council of Jerusalem, in opposition to the Twelve no less
than to Paul, though under their name, had organized the
counter mission which Paul soon met in all the churches
founded by him. Most commentators justly hold that these
people and their adherents at Corinth formed the party which
in 1 Cor. i. 12 is named by Paul the party of Christ. In
this case it is easy to understand the meaning of the designa-
-tion. It means, in contradistinction to those who were carried

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 61

away with enthusiasm for this or that preacher, those who
would not submit either to Paul or the Twelve, and who
appealed from them to the authority of Christ alone. Thus
the party called that of Christ is contrasted (1 Cor. i. 12)
with that of Peter, as well as with that of Paul or Apollos.^

At the time when Paul wrote our Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, the hottest moment of the conflict was past.
This Epistle in many of its parts is a shout of victory (comp.
espe(da]ly chap. vii.). It was intended, while drawing closely
the bond between the apostle and the portion of the church
which had returned into communion with him, finally to
reduce the rebellious portion to submission or powerlessness ; ^
and it appears to have gained its end. Paul, regarding this
church as henceforth restored to him, came at length, in the end
•of the year 58, to make his long-expected sojourn among them ;
he passed the month of December of this year at Corinth,
and the first two months of the following year. Then he set
out, shortly before the feast of Passover, on a last visit to
Jerusalem. For some time past vast plans filled his mind
(Acts xix. 21). Already his thoughts turned to Eome and
the West. Paul was in the highest degree one of those men
who think they have done nothing so long as anything
remains for them to do. The East was evangelized; the
torch of the gospel was at least lighted in all the great
capitals of Asia and Greece, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth. To
these churches it fell to spread the light in the countries
which surrounded them, and so to continue the apostolic
work. Egypt and Alexandria had probably been visited,
perhaps by Barnabas and Mark after their journey to Cyprus.
The "West remained. This was the field which now opened
to the view and thoughts of the apostle. But already the
gospel has preceded him to Eome. He learns the fact . . .
What matters it ? Eome becomes to him a mere point of
-passage. And his goal, receding with the rapid march of the

* There is nothing more curious than to see how Baur seeks to get rid of this
distinction between the party of Christ and that of Peter, which is absolutely-
destructive of his system: "The partisans of Peter and of Christ," he says,
" were not two different parties, but only two different names for one and the
eame party," Paulus, I. 297, 298.

^ The last four chapters are, as it were, the ultimatum addi'essed to this
rarty.

52 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

gospel, will now be Spain.^ His Christian ambition driven
him irresistibly to the extremity of the known world. A duty,
however, still detained him in the East. He wished to pay
Jerusalem a last visit, not only to take leave of the metropolis,
of Christendom, but more especially to present to it, at tha
head of a numerous deputation of Gentile Christians, the
homage of the whole pagan world, in the form of a rich
offering collected in all the churches during these last years
in behalf of the Christians of Jerusalem. What more fitted
to cement the bond of love which he had endeavoured to form
and keep up between the two great portions of Christendom !

All the deputies of the churches of Greece and Asia, his
travelling companions, were already assembled at Corinth to
embark with him for Syria, when he learned that the
freighted vessel and its cargo were threatened with dangers
by sea. He therefore took the way by Macedonia, celebrated
the Passover feasts at Philippi, and hastened the rest of his
journey so as to arrive at Jerusalem for Pentecost. There he
solemnly deposited the fruit of the collection in the hands of
the elders of the church presided over by James. In the
conference which followed, James communicated to him the
prejudices with which he was regarded by the thousands of
believing Jews who were daily arriving at Jerusalem to
celebrate the feast. Paul had been represented to them as a
deadly enemy of the law, whose one aim was to destroy
Mosaism among the Jews throughout the whole world,
James proposed to him to give the lie to these rumours, by
himself carrying out a Levitical ceremony in the temple
before the eyes of all. The proposal was that he should join
some Jews who were then discharging a vow of NazariUshif,
and take upon himself the common expense.

M. Ptenan represents St. Paul as if he must have been
greatly embarrassed by this proposition, because he could not
conceal from himself that the rumour spread against him was
thoroughly well founded. To consent to James's proposal
was therefore deliberately to create a misunderstanding, " to
commit an unfaithfulness towards Christ." Yet this writer
thinks that Paul, under constraint of charity, managed to
overcome his repugnance ; as if charity authorized dissimula-

* Observe the delicate expression of this thought, Rom. xv, 24.

X:;HAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 53

tion ! M. Eeuss seems to hesitate between two views :
either Luke, incapable of rising to the height of Paul's pure
spirituality, has not given an exact representation of the facts,
or we must blame Paul himself : " If things really passed as
the text relates, ... it must be confessed that the apostle lent
himself to a weak course of which we should hardly have
thought him capable ; ... for the step taken was either a
profession of Judaism or the playing of a comedy." ^ Both
alternatives are equally false, we answer with thorough con-
viction. In fact, Paul could with perfect sincerity give the
lie to the report spread among the Judeo- Christians of the
East. If, on the one hand, he was firmly opposed to every
attempt to subject Gentile converts to the Mosaic law, on the
other, he had never souglit to induce the Jews to cast it off
arbitrarily. This would have been openly to violate the
Jerusalem compromise. Did not he himself, in many circum-
stances when he had to do with Jews, consent to subject
himself to legal rights ? Have we not already quoted what
he wrote to the Corinthians : " To those that are under the
law I became as under the law" (1 Cor. ix. 20)? The
■external rite being a thing indifferent in his eyes, he could
iise it in the service of charity. And if he sometimes con-
formed to it, it is perfectly certain that he could never allow
himself to become its fanatical adversary. He left it to time
to set free the conscience of his countrymen, and did not
■dream of hastening the hour by a premature emancipation.
And therefore, whatever may be said to the contrary, he
could protest without weakness and without charlatanism
against the assertion which represented him in the East as the
deadly destroyer of Mosaism among all the members of the
Jewish nation.

The circumstance to w^hich we have been referring was, as
is well known, the occasion of his being arrested. Here
begins the last period of his life, that of his imprisonments.

III.

After his imprisonment and a show of trial at Jerusalem,
Paul was transferred to Cesarea. In this city he passed two

* Hist, apostol. pp. 208, 209.

54 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. L

whole years, vainly expecting to be liberated by the governor
Felix. In the year 60 the latter was recalled; and either
in this year, or more probably the following, his successor,
Testus, arrived. Here is the second principal date in the
apostle's life, which, with the aid of the Eoman historians,
we can fix with tolerable certainty. In the year 61 (some
say 60) Paul appeared before Festus, when, to put an end
to the tergiversations of the provincial authority, he appealed
to the imperial tribunal. It was a right which his Eoman
citizenship gave him. Hence his departure for Eome in the
autumn following the arrival of Festus. We are familiar
with the circumstances of his voyage, and of the shipwreck
which detained him at Malta for the winter. He did not
arrive at Eome till the following spring. We learn from the
last two verses of the Acts that he continued there for two years
as a prisoner, but enjoying much liberty of action. He could
receive his fellow- workers who traversed Europe and Asia, who
brought him news of the churches, and in return carried to
them his letters (Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians).

Here Luke's history closes abruptly. From this time we
have nothing to guide us except patristic traditions of a
remarkably confused character, or suppositions still more
uncertain. Some assert that Paul perished, like Peter, in the
persecution of Nero, in August of the year 64 ; on the other
hand, certain statements of the Fathers would lead us to
think that Paul was liberated at the close of the two years
mentioned in the Acts ; that he was able to fulfil the promise
which he had made to Philemon and to the Philippians to
visit them in the East (Philem. 22; Phil. ii. 24) ; and that
he accomplished his utmost purpose, that of carrying the
gospel to Spain. If the pastoral Epistles are really by the
apostle, as we cannot help thinking, they are the monument
of this last period of his activity. For it does not seem ta
Tis possible to place them at any period whatever of Paul'a
ministry anterior to his first captivity at Eome.

As no church in Spain claims the honour of being founded
by the apostle, we must hold, on this supposition, that he was
seized shortly after his arrival on Iberian soil, and led prisoner
to the Capital to be judged there. The Second Epistle to
Timothy would, in that case, be the witness of this last cap*

CHAP. L] the apostle ST. PAUL. 55

tivity ; and Paul's martyrdom, which, according to the testi-
mony of the Eoman presbyter Cains (second century), took
place on the Ostian Way, must be placed about the year 6 6
or 6 7. This is the date indicated by Eusebius.^

"We have thus, for fixing the clironology of the life of the
apostle, two dates which are certain : that of his journey to
Jerusalem with Barnabas at the time of Herod Agrippa's death
(Acts xii.), in 44 ; and that of his appearing before Festus
on the arrival of the latter in Palestine (Acts xxv.), in 6 1 (or
60). It remains to us, by means of those fixed points, to
indicate the approximate dates of the principal events of the
apostle's life.

Festus died the same year as he arrived in Palestine, con-
sequently before the Passover of 62.

Paul cannot therefore have been sent by him to Ptome, at
the latest, till the autumn of the year 61. Paul's arrest at
Jerusalem took place two years earlier, at Pentecost, conse-
quently in the spring of 59.

The third missionary journey, which immediately preceded
this arrest, embraces his stay at Ephesus, which lasted about
three years (Acts xix. 8, 10, xx. 31), and various journeys
into Greece besides, perhaps more important and numerous
than is generally thought. If to this we add his stay in
Achaia (Acts xx. 3), and the last journey to Jerusalem, we
are led backwards to the autumn of the year 64 as the
beginning of his third journey.

His second mission, the Greek one, of which Corinth was
the centre, cannot have lasted less than two years, for the
Book of Acts reckons eighteen months and one or two more
to his sojourn at Corinth alone (Acts xviii. 11, 18). We
may therefore ascribe to this second missionary journey the
two years between the autumn of 52 and that of 54.

The council of Jerusalem, w^hich was held very shortly
before this time, must consequently be placed at the beginning
of 52, or about tlie end of 51.

The first missionary journey, that of Paul and Barnabas in
Asia Minor, as well as the two sojourns at Antioch before and
after, filled the few years preceding.

Thus, going back step by step, we reach the other date
* But while eiToneously placing the persecution of Nero iu that year.

56 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. I.

which must serve as a guiding-point, that of Herod Agrippa's
death, in 44. Now the time at which we arrive, following
Paul's career backwards, is exactly the date when Barnabas
seeks him at Tarsus, to bring him to Antioch, where they
laboured together in the church, and whence they were dele-
gated to Jerusalem in regard to the approaching famine ; the
date of Herod Agrippa's death, in 44.

The length of Paul's stay at Tarsus before Barnabas sought
him there is not exactly indicated, but it seems to have been
considerable. We may reckon it at three or four years, and
we come to the year 40 as that in which Paul's first visit
to Jerusalem, after his conversion, took place.

This visit was preceded by Paul's journey to Arabia (Gal.
i. 18), and his two sojourns at Damascus before and after it;
he himself reckons this period at three years (i. 18). Paul's
conversion would thus fall about the year 37.

Paul must then have been at least thirty years of age. We
may therefore place his birth about the year 7 ; and if he died
in 67, assign to his earthly life a duration of sixty years.

This entire series of dates appears to us in itself to be clear
and logical. But, more than that, history in general presents
a considerable number of points of verification, which very
interestingly confirm this biographical sketch. We shall
mention six of them.

1. We know that Pilate was recalled from his government
in the year 36. This circumstance serves to explain the
martyrdom of Stephen, which is intimately connected with
Saul's conversion. Indeed, the right of pronouncing sentence
of death having been withdrawn from the Jews by the Eoman
administration prior to the death of Jesus, it is not likely that
they would have indulged in so daring an encroachment on
the power of their masters as that of putting Stephen to
death, if the representative of the Eoman power had been in
Palestine at the time. There is therefore ground for think-
ing that the murder of Stephen must be placed in the year
36, the time of the vacancy between Pilate and his suc-
cessor. An event of the same kind took place, according to
Josephus, about the year 62, when the high priest Ananias
put James the brother of Jesus to death, in the interval which
separated the death of Festus from the arrival of Albinus his

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 57

successor. The absence of the governor, it would seem,
awoke in the heart of the people and their leaders the feeling
of their ancient national independence.

2. The journey of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, recorded
in Acts xi. and xii. (on occasion of the famine announced by
Agabus), must have taken place, according to our chronology,
in the year 44 (Herod Agrippa's death). Now we know from
the historians that the great famine overtook Palestine in the
reign of Claudius, in 45 or 46, which agrees with the date
assigned to this journey.

3. St. Paul declares, Gal. ii. 1, that it was fourteen years
after his conversion (such is the most probable meaning of the
passage) when he repaired to Jerusalem with Barnabas to
confer with the apostles (Acts xv.). If, as we have seen, this
conference took place in 51, it reaUy falls in the fourteenth
year after the year 3 7, the date of the apostle's conversion.

4. We have been led to the conclusion that the apostle
arrived at Corinth about the end of the year 52. Now it is
said (Acts xviii. 1) that Paul on arriving at this city made
the acquaintance of a family of Jewish origin, that of Aquila
and Priscilla, who had recently come from Italy in conse-
quence of the decree of the Emperor Claudius commanding
the expulsion of Jews from Eorae. " Claudius," says Sue-
tonius, " banished from Eome the Jews, who were perpetually
raising insurrections." Prom various indications furnished by
Eoman historians, this decree must belong to the last days of
the life of Claudius. Now this emperor died in 54 ; the
date of the decree of banishment thus nearly coincides with
that of Paul's arrival at Corinth.

5. Towards the end of his stay at Corinth, Paul was
charged before the proconsul of Achaia, called Gallio. This
proconsul is not an unknown personage. He was the brother
of the philosopher Seneca, a man of great distinction, who
plays a part in his brother's correspondence. He was consul
in the year 5 1 ; his proconsulship must have followed imme-
diately thereafter. Gallio was thus reaUy, at the time indi-
cated in Acts, proconsul of Achaia.

6. Josephus relates that, while Pelix was governor of
Judea, an Egyptian excited several thousands of Jews to
insurrection, and proceeded to attack Jerusalem. The band

58 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. L

was destroyed by Felix, but the leader escaped. Now we
know from Acts that, towards the end of Felix' government,
the Eoman captain who was commanding at Jerusalem sus-
pected Paul of being an Egyptian who had incited the people
to rebellion (Acts xxi. 38). All the circumstances harmonize.
It was the very time when the escaped fanatic might have
attempted a new rising.

If we recapitulate the principal dates to which we have
been led, we find that the apostle's life is divided as follows : —

From 7-3 7 : His life as a Jew and Pharisee.

From 37-44 : The years of his preparation for his apostleship.

From 44-51 : His first missionary journey, with the two
stays at Antioch, before and after, and his journey to the
council of Jerusalem.

From 52-54: His second missionary journey ; the found-
ing of the churches of Greece (the two Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians).

From 54-59 : The third missionary journey; the stay at
Ephesus, and the visits to Greece and to Jerusalem (the four
principal Epistles, Galatians, 1st and 2d Corinthians, Romans).

From 59 (summer) to 61 (autumn) : Arrest at Jerusalem,
captivity at Cesarea.

From 6 1 (autumn) to 62 (spring) : Voyage, shipwreck ;
arrival at Eome.

From 62 (spring) to 64 (spring) : Captivit}'- at Rome
(Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians).

From 64 (spring) to 66 or 67: Liberation, second capti-
vity, martyrdom (pastoral Epistles).

How are we to account for the institution of this extra-
ordinary apostleship side by side with the regular apostleship
of the Twelve ?

The time had come, in the progress of the kingdom of God,
when the particularistic work founded in Abraham was at
length to pass into the great current of humanity, from which
it had been kept apart. Kow, the normal mode of this un-
paralleled religious revolution would have been this : Israel
itself, with the work of the Messiah before it, really and joy-
fully proclaiming throughout the whole world the completion
of salvation, and the end of the theocratic economy. It wa*

CHAP. I.] THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL. 59

to prepare Israel for this task, the glorious crown of its history,
that Jesus had specially chosen the Twelve. Apostles to the
elect nation, they were to make it the apostle of the world.

But man seldom answers completely to the task which God
has destined for him. Instead of acceptiug this part, the part
of love, in the humility of which it would have found its real
gT;eatness, Israel strove to maintain its theocratical prerogative.
It rejected the Eedeemer of the world rather than abandon its
privileged position. It wished to save its life, and it lost it.

Then, in order to replace it, God required to call an excep-
tional instrument and found a special apostleship. Paul was
neither the substitute of Judas, whom the Twelve had prema-
turely replaced (Acts ii.), as has been thought, nor that of James
the son of Zebedee, whose martyrdom is related Acts xii. He is
the substitute for a converted Israel, the man who had, single-
handed, to execute the task which feU to his whole natioa
And so the hour of his call was precisely, as we have seen,
that, when the blood of the two martyrs, Stephen and James,
sealed the hardening of Israel and decided its rejection.

The calling of Paul is nothing less than the counterpart of
Abraham's.

The qualities with which Paul was endowed for this mis-
sion were as exceptional as the task itself. He combined
with the power of inward and meditative concentration all the
gifts of practical action. His mind descended to the most
minute details of ecclesiastical administration (1 Cor. xiv.
26-37, e.fjf.) as easily as it mounted the steps of the mystic
ladder whose top reaches the divine throne (2 Cor. xii. 1-4, e.(/.).

A not less remarkable combination of opposite powers,
which usually exclude one another, strikes us equally in his
writings. Here we meet, on the one hand, with the dialec-
tical rigour which will not quit a subject till after having
completely analyzed it, nor an adversary till it has transfixed
him with his own sword ; and, on the other, with a delicate
and profound sensibility, and a concentrated warmth of heart,
the flame oi which sometimes bursts forth even through the
forms of the severest argumentation. The Epistle to the
Romans will furnish more than one example.

The life of St. Paul is summed up in a word : a unique
man for a unique task.

CHAPTEE II.

THE CHURCH OF ROME.

AFTER having made acquaintance with the author of our
Epistle, it is important for us to form a just idea of the
church to which it was addressed. Three questions arise
here : — 1. How was the church of Rome founded ? 2. Were
the majority of its members of Jewish or Gentile origin ?
3. Was its religious tendency particularistic or Pauline ?

These three subjects, the foibndation^ composition, and
tendency of the church, are undoubtedly intimately related.
They may, however, be studied separately. To avoid repetition,
we shall treat the last two under a common head.

I. Foicndation of the Roman Ghtirch.

Among the apostolic foundations mentioned in the Book of
Acts, that of the church of Rome does not appear. Reuss
sees a lacuna in this silence. But is not the omission a proof
of the real course of things ? Does it not show that the
foundation of the Roman church was not distinguished by any
notable event such as the historian can lay hold of ; that it
took place in a sort o^ stealthy manner, and was not the work
of any individual of mark ?

What are the oldest known proofs of the existence of a
Christian church at Rome ?

In the first place, our Epistle itself, which assumes the
existence, if not of a completely organized church, at least of
several Christian groups in the capital ; in the second place,
the fact related in the first part of Acts xxviii. On his
arrival at Rome in the spring of the year 62, Paul is wel-
comed by Ircthrcn who, on the news of his approach, come to
receive him at the distance of a dozen leagues from the city.
How was such a Christian community formed ?

60

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF KOME. 61

Three answers are given to the question.

I. The Catholic Church ascribes the founding of the church
of Eome to the preaching of Peter. This apostle, it is said,
came to Eome to preach the gospel and combat the heresies
of Simon the magician, at the beginning of the reign of the
Emperor Claudius (41-54). But it is very probable that this
tradition rests in whole or in part on a gross mistake, of which
Justin Martyr is the first author.^ If the apostle had really
come to Eome so early, and had been the first to propagate
the gospel there, Paul evidently could not write a long letter
to this church without mentioning its founder; and if we
consider that this letter is a didactic writing of great length,
a more or less complete exposition of the gospel, we shall con-
clude that he could not, in consistency with his own principles,,
have addressed it to a church founded by another apostle.
For he more than once declares that it is contrary to his
apostolic practice " to enter into another man's labours," or
" to build on the foundation laid by another " (Eom. xv. 20;
2 Cor. X. 16).

Strange that a Protestant writer, Thiersch, is almost the
only theologian of merit who still defends the assertion of
Peter's sojourn at Eome in the beginning of the reign of
Claudius. He supports it by two facts: the passage Acts
xii. 17, where it is said that, delivered from his prison at-
Jerusalem, Peter went into another 'place, — a mysterious expres>
sion used, according to this critic, to designate Eome ; and next,
the famous passage of Suetonius, relative to the decree of
Claudius banishing the Jews from Eome, because they ceased
not " to rise at the instigation of Chrestus." ^ According tc*
Thiersch, these last words are a vague indication of the intro-
duction of Christianity into Eome at this period by St. Peter,
and of the troubles which the fact had caused in the Eomaii
synagogue. These arguments are alike without solidity. Why
should not Luke have specially named Eome if St. Peter had
really withdrawn thither? He had no reason to make a

^ ApoL i. c. 26. Justin takes a statue raised to a Sabine god (Semo Sancus)
in an island of the Tiber for a statue erected to the magician Simon of the Book
of Acts. This statue was rediscovered in 1574 with the inscription : Semoni
Sanco Deo Fidio. Such at least is one of the sources of the legend. Eusebius
(ii. 14) has followed Justin.

* Claud, c. 25 : Judceos impulsore Chresto assidue tumuUuantes Romd expulii.

^2 INTEODUCTION. [CHAP. II.

mystery of the name. Besides, at this period, from 41 to 44,
Peter can hardly have gone so far as Eome ; for in 5 1 (Acts
XV.) we find him at Jerusalem, and in 54 only at Antioch.
Paul himself, the great pioneer of the gospel in the West, had
not yet, in 42, set foot on the European continent, nor preached
in Greece. And the author of the Acts, in chap. vi.-xiii.,
enumerates very carefully all the providential circumstances
which paved the way for carrying the gospel into the Gentile
world. Assuredly, therefore, Peter had not up to that time
crossed the seas to evangelize Eome. As to the passage of
-Suetonius, it is very arbitrary to make Chrestus a personifica-
tion of Christian preaching in general. The true Eoman
tradition is much rather to be sought in the testimony of a
deacon of the church who lived in the third or fourth century,
and is known as a writer under the name of Ambrosiaster or
the false Ambrose (because his writings appear in the works
of St. Ambrose), but whose true name was probably Hilary.
He declares, to the praise of his church, that the Eoinans had
become believers " without having seen a single miracle or any
of the apostles." ^ Most Catholic writers of our day, who are
earnest and independent, combat the idea that Peter sojourned
at Eome under the reign of Claudius.

After all we have said, we do not mean in the least to deny
that Peter came to Eome about the end of his life. The
■testimonies bearing on this stay seem to us too positive to be
set aside by judicious criticism.^ But in any case, his visit
cannot have taken place till after the composition of the
Epistle to the Eomans, and even of the letters written by
Paul during his Eoman captivity in 62 and 63 (Col. Phil.
Eph. Philem.). How, if Peter had at that time laboured
simultaneously with him in the city of Eome, could Paul
have failed to name him among the preachers of the gospel
whom he mentions, and from whom he sends greetings ? Peter
cannot therefore have arrived at Eome till the end of the
year 63 or the beginning of 64, and his stay cannot have
lasted more than a few months till August 64, when he

' Commentaria in XIII. epifttolas Paulinas.

* The testimonies are those of Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria,
Dionysius of Cor., the author of the Fragment of Muratori, Irenseus, Tertullian,
^nd Cahis.

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF ROME. 63

perished as a victim of the persecution of Nero. As Hilgen-
feld says : " To be a good Protestant, one need not combat this
tradition." ^ It is even probable that, but for the notoriety of
this fact, the legend of the founding of the church of Eome
by St. Peter could never have arisen and become so firmly
•established.

II. The second supposition by which it has been sought to
explain the existence of this church — for in the absence of
everything in the form of narrative one is reduced to hypo-
thesis— is the following: Jews of Kome who had come to
Jerusalem at the time of the feasts were there brought into
contact with the first Christians, and so carried to Ptome the
seeds of the faith. Mention is made indeed, Acts ii. 10, of
Eoman pilgrims, some Jews by birth, the others proselytes,
that is to say. Gentiles originally, but converted to Judaism,
who were present during the events of the day of Pentecost.
At every feast thereafter this contact between the members of
the rich and numerous Eoman synagogue and those of the
church of Jerusalem must have been repeated, and must have
produced the same result. If this explanation of the origin
of the church of Eome is established, it is evident that it was
by means of the synagogue that the gospel spread in tliis city.

M. Mangold, one of the most decided supporters of this
hypothesis,^ alleges two facts in its favour — (1) the legend of
Peter's sojourn at Eome, which he acknowledges to be false,
but which testifies, he thinks, to the recollection of certain
original communications between the apostolic church, of which
Peter was the head, and the Eoman synagogue ; (2) the passage
of Suetonius, which we have already quoted, regarding the
troubles which called forth the edict of Claudius. According
to Mangold, these troubles were nothing else than the violent
debates raised among the members of the Eoman synagogue
by the Christian preaching of those pilgrims on their return
from Jerusalem.

But, as we have seen, the legend of Peter's preaching at
Eome seems to have an entirely different origin from that
which Mangold supposes ; and the interpretation of the pas-
sage of Suetonius which he proposes, following Baur, is very

» Einl p. 624.

* Der Roraerbrief und die Anfdnge der romischen Gemeinde, 1866.

64 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II

uncertain. According to Wieseler and many other critics,
Chrestus — the name was a very common one for a freedman
— simply designates here an obscure Jewish agitator ; or, as
seems to us more probable, Suetonius having vaguely heard of
the expectation of the Messias (of the Christ) among the Jews,
regarded the name as that of a real living person to whom he
ascribed the constant ferment and insurrectionary dispositions
which the Messianic expectation kept up among the Jews.
The word tumultuari, to rise in insurrection, used by the
Koman historian, applies much more to outbreaks of rebellion
than to intestine controversies within the synagogue. How
could these have disturbed the public order and disquieted
Claudius ?

There are two facts, besides, which seem to us opposed to
this way of explaining the founding of the church of Eome.

1. How comes it that no circumstance analogous to that
which on the above hypothesis gave rise to the Roman church,
can be proved in any of the other great cities of the empire ?
There were Jewish colonies elsewhere than at Rome. There
were such at Ephesus, Corinth, and Thessalonica. Whence
comes it that, when Paul arrived in these cities, and preached
in their synagogues for the first time, the gospel appeared a&
a thing entirely new ? Is there any reason for holding that
the Christianity of Palestine exercised a more direct and
prompt influence on the synagogue of Rome than on that of
the other cities of the empire ?

2. A second fact seems to us more decisive stiU. It is
related in Acts xxviii. that Paul, three days after his arrival
at Rome, called together to his hired house, where he was kept
prisoner, the rulers of the Roman synagogue. The latter
asked him to give precise information as to the doctrine of
which he was the representative. " For," said they, " we have
heard this sect spoken of, and we know that it meets with
opposition everywhere " (in every synagogue). The narrative
does not state the inference drawn by them from these facts ;
but it was evidently this : " Not knowing the contents of this
new faith, we would like to learn them from lips so authorita-
tive as thine." What proves that this was really the meaning
of the Jews' words is, that they fixed a day for Paul when
they would come to converse with him on the subject. The

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF ROME. 65

conference bore, as is stated in the sequel of the narrative,
" on the kingdom of God and concerning Jesus," taking as the
starting-point "the law of Moses and the prophets" (ver. 23).
Now, how are we to understand this ignorance of the rulers
of the synagogue in respect of Christianity, if that religion had
really been preached among them already, and had excited
such violent debates as to provoke an edict of banishment
against the whole Jewish colony ?

It has been sought to get rid of this difi&culty in different
ways. Eeuss has propounded the view that the question of
the rulers of the synagogue did not refer to Christianity in
general, but to Paul's individual teaching, and the opposition
excited against him by the Judeo- Christian party.^ But this
view would have imperatively demanded the Greek form a av
<f>poveh, and not merely a (jipoveU. Besides, the sequel of the
narrative very clearly shows that Paul's exposition bore on
the kingdom of God and the gospel in general, and not
merely on the differences between Paulinism and Judaizing
Christianity.

Others have taken the words of the Jews to be either a
feint, or at least a cautious reserve. They measured their
words, it is said, from the fear of compromising themselves, or
even, so Mangold thinks, from the desire of extorting some
declaration from the apostle which they might use against
him in his trial. The rest of the narrative is incompatible
with these suppositions. The Jews enter very seriously into
the discussion of the religious question. On the day fixed
they come to the appointed place of meeting in greater
numbers than formerly. During a whole day, /rom morning
till nighty they discuss the doctrine and history of Jesus,
referring to the texts of Moses and the prophets. On the
part of men engaged in business, as must have been the case
with the rulers of the rich Jewish community established at
Rome, such conduct testifies to a serious interest. The result
of the interview furnishes like proof of the sincerity of their
conduct. This result is twofold; some go away convinced,
others resist to the last. This difference would be inconceiv-
able if they had come to Paul already acquainted with the
preaching of the gospel merely to lay a snare for him.

' Again quite recently in his Ilistoire Apostolique, pp. 247, 248.
GODET. B ROM. I.

66 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II

Olshausen lias proposed a different solution. According to
him, the banishment of the Jews by Claudius led to a com-
plete rupture between the synagogue and the Judeo-Christiana
■for the latter naturally sought to evade the decree of expul-
sion. And so it happened that, when the banished Jewa
returned to Eome, there was no longer anything in common
between them and the church ; the Eoman Jews soon lost all
recollection of Christian doctrine. But Baur and Mangold
have thoroughly refuted this supposition. It ascribes much
more considerable effects to the edict of Claudius than it can
ever have had in reality. And how could a short time of
exile have sufficed to efface from the minds of the Jewish
community the memory of Christian preaching, if it had
already made itself heard in full synagogue ?

Baur has discarded all half measures. He has struck at
the root of the difficulty. He has pronounced the narrative
of the Acts a fiction. The author desired to pass off Paul as
much more conciliatory to Judaism than he really was. The
true Paul had not the slightest need of an act of positive
unbelief on the part of the Jew^s of Eome, to think himself
authorized to evangelize the Gentiles of the capital. He did
not recognise that alleged right of priority which the Judeo-
Christians claimed in favour of their nation, and which is
assumed by the narrative of the Acts. This narrative therefore
is fictitious.^ The answer to this imputation is not difficult :
the Paul of Acts certainly does not resemble the Paul of Baur's
theory ; but he is assuredly the Paul of history. It is Paul
himself who proves this to us when he writes thrice with his
own hand, at the beginning of the Epistle to the Eomans
(i. 16,ii. 9, 10), the: "to the Jev/s first," which so completely
confirms the course taken by him among the Jews of Eome,
and described so carefully by the author of the Acts.

AU these explanations of the account, Acts xxviii., being
thus untenable, it only remains to accept it in its natural
meaning with the inevitable consequences. The rulers of the
synagogue of Eome had undoubtedly heard of the disputes
which were everywhere raised among their , co-religionists by
the preaching of Jesus as the Christ. But they had not yet

' Paulm, I. 367 et seg. Hilgenfeld likewise : "The narrative of the Acts ie
not credible. '*

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF ROME. 67

an exact acquaintance with this new faith. Christianity had
therefore not yet been preached in the Eoman synagogue.

III. Without altogether denying what may have been done
in an isolated way for the spread of Christianity at Eome by
Jews returning from Jerusalem, we must assign the founding
of the Eoman church to a different origin. Eome was to the
world what the heart is to the body, the centre of vital circu-
lation. Tacitus asserts that " all things hateful or shameful
were sure to flow to Eome from all parts of the empire."
This law must have applied also to better things. Long before
the composition of the Epistle to the Eomans, the gospel had
already crossed the frontier of Palestine and spread among
the Gentile populations of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece.
Endowed as it was with an inherent force of expansion, could
not the new religious principle easily find its way from those
countries to Eome ? Eelations between Eome and Syria in
particular were frequent and numerous. Eenan himself
remarks them : " Eome was the meeting-point of all the
Oriental forms of worship, the point of the Mediterranean
with which the Syrians had most connection. They arrived
there in enormous bands. With them there landed troops of
Greeks and Asiatics, all speaking Greek. ... It is in the
highest degree probable that so early as the year 50 some
Jews of Syria already become Christian entered the capital of
the empire." ' In these sentences of Eenan we have only a
word to correct. It is the word Jews. For it is certain that
the churches of Antioch and Syria were chiefly composed of
Greeks. Those Christians of Gentile origin might therefore
very soon make their way to Eome. And why should it have
been otherwise with members of the Christian communities of
Asia and Greece, who were much nearer still.

There are some facts which serve to confirm the essentially
Gentile origin of the Eoman church. Five times, in the
salutations which close our Epistle, the apostle addresses
groups of Christians scattered over the great city.^ At least
five times for once to the contrary, the names of the brethren
whom he salutes are Greek and Latin, not Jewish. These

^ Saint Paul, pp. 97, 98.

^ We shall afterwards examine the question whether those salutations really
form part of the Epistle to the Romans,

68 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II

bear witness to the manner in which the gospel had gained
a footing in the capital. This wide dissemination and those
names of Gentile origin find a natural explanation in the
arrival of Christians of Greece and Asia, who had preached
the word each in the quarter of the city where he lived.
The course of things would have been quite different had the
preaching of the gospel proceeded from the synagogue. A
still more significant fact is related in the first part of Acts
xxviii. On hearing of St. Paul's approach, the brethren who
reside at Eome haste to meet him, and receive him with an
affection which raises his courage. Does not this prove that
they already loved and venerated him as their spiritual father,
and that consequently their Christianity proceeded directly
or indirectly from the churches founded by Paul in Greece
and Asia, rather than from the Judeo-Christian church of
Jerusalem ? Beyschlag, in his interesting work on the sub-
ject before us,^ raises the objection that between the com-
position of the Epistle to the Eomans, about the end of the
year 57 or 58, and the founding of the churches of Greece,
about 53 or 54, too little time had elapsed to allow the
gospel to spread so far as Kome, and to make it possible for
the whole world to have heard of the fact (Eom. i. 8). But
the latter phrase is, of course, somew^hat hyperbolical (comp.
1 Thess. i. 8 ; Col. i. 6). And if the founding of the churches
of Syria goes back, as we have seen, to about the year 40, and
so to a date eighteen or nineteen years before the Epistle to
the Eomans, the time thus gained lor this Christian invasion
is certainly not too short. Even the five or six years w^hich
intervene between the evangelization of Greece and the com-
position of our Epistle sufficed to explain the arrival of the
gospel at Eome from the great commercial centres of Thessa-
lonica and Corinth.

It may be asked, no doubt, how came it, if it did so happen,
that the representatives of the Christian faith in the capital
liad not yet raised the standard of the new doctrine in the
synagogue ? But it must be remembered that for such a
mission it w^as not enough to be a sincere believer; one
required to feel himself in possession of scripture knowledge,
and of a power of speech and argument which could not be
" Das goschichtliche Problem des Roraerbriefs," Stud, und Kritih. 1867.

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF ROME. 69

expected from simple men engaged in commerce and industry.
We read in Acts (xviii. 26 et seq.) that when ApoUos arrived
at Ephesus, and when, supported by his eminent talents and
biblical erudition, he made hold — such is the word used — to
speak in the synagogue, Aquila, the disciple and friend of
Paul, did not attempt to answer him in the open assembly,
but thought it enough to take him unto him. to instruct him
privately in the knowledge of the gospel. This is easily
understood ; it was a paradoxical proclamation which was in
question, being, as St. Paul says, to the Greeks foolishness, and
still more to the Jews a stumbling-block. The first-comer was
not fitted to proclaim and defend it before the great Eabbins
of capitals such as A^ntioch, Ephesus, or Eome. So true is
this, that some expressions in the Epistle to the Eomans
would lead us to suppose that Paul himself was accused of
shrinking from the task. Is it not indeed to a suspicion
of this kind that he is alluding, when, after speaking of the
delays which had hitherto prevented his visit to Eome, he
declares (i. 16) "that he is not ashamed of the gospel of
Christ" ? Only a very small number of men exceptionally
qualified could essay an attack such as would tell on the
fortress of Eoman Judaism, and not one of those strong men
had yet appeared in the capital.

We have in the Book of Acts an account of the founding
of a church entirely analogous to that which we are supposing
for the church of Eome. It is that of the church of Antioch.
Some Christian emigrants from Jerusalem reach this capital
of Syria shortly after the persecution of Stephen ; they turn
to the Greeks, that is to say, the Gentiles of the city. A large
number believe, and the distinction between this community
of Gentile origin and the synagogue is brought out so pointedly
that a new name is invented to designate believers, that of
Christian (Acts xi. 19-26). Let us transfer this scene from
the capital of Sj^ria to the capital of the empire, and we have
the history of the founding of the church of Eome. We
understand how Greek names are in a majority, such being
borne by the most distinguished of the members of the church
(in the salutations of chap, xvi.) ; we understand the ignorance
which stiU prevailed among the rulers of the synagogue in
relation to the gospel; we understand the extraordinary

70 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II.

eascmess with whicli the Christians of Rome come to salute
Paul on his arrival. All the facts find their explanation, and
the narrative of the Acts is vindicated without difficulty.

II. Composition and Tendency of the Roman Church.

It was generally held, till the time of Baur, that the
majority of the Eoman church was of Gentile origin, and
consequently sympathized in its tendency with the teaching
of Paul; this view was inferred from a certain number of
passages taken from the Epistle itself, and from the natural
enough supposition that the majority of the church would
take the general character of the Eoman population.

But Baur, in a work of remarkable learning and sagacity,'
maintained that on this view, which had already been com-
bated by Eiickert, it was absolutely impossible to explain the
aim and construction of the Epistle to the Eomans ; that such
a letter had no meaning except as addressed to a church of
Judeo- Christian origin, and of Judaizing and particularistic
tendency, whose views Paul was concerned to correct. He
sought to give an entirely different meaning from the received
one to the passages usually alleged in favour of the contrary
opinion ; and he succeeded so w^ell in demonstrating his
thesis, that he carried with him the greater number of theo-
logians (MM. Eeuss, Thiersch, Mangold, Schenkel, Sabatier,
Holtzmann, Volkmar, Holsten, etc.). Even Tholuck, in the
fifth edition of his Commentary, yielded, up to a certain point,
to the weight of the reasons advanced by the Tiibingen critic,
and acknowledged the necessity of holding for the explanation
of the Epistle the existence at Eome, if not of a majority, at
least of a very strong minority of Judaizers. Philippi made
a similar concession. Things had come to this three years
ago, that Holtzmann could assert without exaggeration that
" Baur's opinion now hardly found any opponent." ^

Yet even in 1858 Theodore Schott, while making large
concessions to Baur's view regarding the tendency and arrange-
ment of the Epistle, had energetically maintained that there

* " U(n)er Zweck unci Veranlassung des Romerbriefs, " in the Zeitschrift fiir
WiasenschafUiche Theologie, 1836 (reproduced in liis Paulu^, I. 343 et seq.)-

• JahrhUcher fur protestantische Theologie.

CHAP. II.] THE CHUECH OF ROME. 7l

was a Gentile- Christian majority in the church of Eome.'
Several theologians have since then declared for tlie same
view ; so Eiggenbach in an article of the Zeitschrift fur die
Lutherische Theologie (1866), reviewing Mangold's work;
Hofmann (of Erlangen) in his Commentary on our Epistle
(1868); Dietzsch in an interesting monograph on Eom. v.
12-21, Adam und Christus (1871); Meyer in the fifth
edition of his Commentary (1872). Even Hilgenfeld in his
Introduction (p. 305) has thought right to modify Baur's
opinion, and to acknowledge the existence of a strong Gentile-
Christian and Pauline element in the Eoman church ; finally,
in the very year in which Holtzmann proclaimed the final
triumph of Baur's view, two authors of well-known erudition
and independence as critics, Schultz and Weizsacker, declared
in the JaJu'bilcher fur deutsche Theologie (187 6) for the pre-
ponderance of the Gentile- Christian element.

After all these oscillations an attempt at conciliation was
to be expected. Beyschlag^ has proposed such a solution,
in a work in which the facts are grouped with a master-hand,
and which concludes, on the one side, that the majority of the
Eoman church, in conformity with Paul's express statements,
was of Gentile origin ; but, on the other, that this Gentile
majority shared Judaizing convictions, because it was com-
posed of former proselytes.

According to the plan which we have adopted, and not
to anticipate the exegesis of the Epistle, we shall not here
discuss the passages alleged either for or against the Gentile
origin of the majority of the readers ; * either for or against
the Judaizing tendency of this majority.^

But outside the exegesis properly so called we have some
indications which may serve to throw light on the double
question of the composition and tendency of the majority of
the church.

1. The letter itself which we have to study. St. Paul, who
would not build on the foundation laid by another, could not

* Der Romerhrief, seinem Zwecke und Gedankengange nach, ausgelegt

* See the article already quoted, p. 68.

^ Ffl7' : i. 6, 13, xi. 13, xv. 14 et seq. Against: ii. 17, iv. 1, vii. 1.

* Against: i. 8,11, 12, vi. 17, xiv. 1-xv. 13, xvi. 17-19, 25. For: the
R'hole polemic against the righteoiisue.ss of the law.

72 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II.

write a letter like this, containing a didactic exposition of the
gospel, except to a church which he knew belonged to him at
least indirectly in its composition and tendency as well as
origin.

2. The ignorance of the rulers of the synagogue in regard
to the gospel. Baur himself, in rejecting Luke's narrative as
a fiction of the author of the Acts, has acknowledged the in-
compatibility of this fact with the preponderance of a majority
in the Eoman church having a Judeo-Christian tendency.

3. The persecution of Nero in 64. This bloody cata-
strophe smote the church of Eome without touching the
synagogue. " Now," says Weizsacker, " if Christians had not
yet existed at Eome, except as a mere Jewish party, the
persecution which fell on them, without even ruffling the sur-
face of Judaism, would be an inexplicable fact both in its
origin and course." ^

4. The information given by the apostle as to the state of
the church in the beginning of his Eoman captivity in Phil. i.
He tells how the somewhat drowsy zeal of the Christians of
the capital had been reawakened by his presence. And in this
connection he mentions some Christians (rti^e?) who set them-
selves fervently to preach, but from envy (ver. 15). Who
are they ? The common answer is : the Judaizers of the
Eoman church. WeU and good. But in that case, as they
form an exception to the majority of the faithful whom Paul
has just mentioned (tou? ifKeiova^, the majority, ver. 14), and
who have received a holy impulse from confidence in his
bonds, the Judaizers can only have been a minority. Here,
then, is an express testimony against the prevalence of Judeo-
Christianity in the church of Eome. Against it is Weizsacker,
who exhibits this proof in all its force.

5. The composition of Mark's Gospel. It is generally
admitted that this narrative was composed at Eome, and for
the Christians of the capital. Now the detailed explanations
contained in the book as to certain Jewish customs, and the
almost entire absence of quotations from the Old Testament,
do not sanction the view that its author contemplated a
majority of readers of Jewish origin.

6. The Epistle of Clement of Eome. This writing, which

* Article quoted, p. 274.

CHAP. II.] THE CHURCH OF ROME. 73

is some thirty odd years posterior to the Epistle to the
Eomans, breathes in all respects, as Weizsacker says, the spirit
of the Gentile- Christian world. Such is also the judgment
of Harnack in his introduction to the Epistle.^ 'No doubt
it is far from the strong spirituality of Paul, but still it
is substantially his conception of Christianity. Now, the
national type of this great church cannot, as Weizsacker says,
have become transformed in so short a space of time. This
writing is therefore a new proof of the predominance of the
Gentile element in this church from its origin.

7. The Easter controversy of the second century. Eome
put herself at the head of all Christendom to root out the
Paschal rite established in the churches of Asia Minor. And
whence came the offence caused by the mode of celebrating
Easter in those churches ? From the fact that they celebrated
the holy Easter supper on the evening of the 14th Nisan, at
the same moment when the Jews, in obedience to the law,
were celebrating their Paschal feast. Certainly, if the Eoman
church had been under the sway of a Judaizing tradition, it
would not thus have found itself at the head of the crusade
raised against them.

8. The catacombs of Eome. There are found at every step
in those burying - places names belonging to the noblest
families of the city, some of them even closely related to the
imperial family. The fact shows the access which Christianity
had found from the first to the upper classes of Eoman society,
who assuredly did not belong to Judaism. Another proof,
the full force of which has been brought out by Weizsacker.

To support his view, Baur has quoted the passage of Hilary,
which we have already mentioned, p. 62, and particularly the
following words : " It is certain that in the time of the apostles
there were Jews dwelling at Eome. Those of them who had
believed, taught the Eomans to profess Christ, while keeping
the law." ^ But the contrast which the passage establishes
between Jews and Eomans shows clearly that Hilary himself
looked on the latter, who, according to him, formed the great

' In the edition of the Apostolic FatJiers, published by Gebhardt, Harnack,
and Zahn.

* Constat temporibtis apostolorum Judceos. . . . Roma hahitasse, ex quibus
hi qui crediderant, tradiderunt Romania ui Christum projitentea legem servarent.

V4 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. II.

body of the cliiircli, as of Gentile origin. So the fact is
precisely the reverse of what Baur affects to prove from the
words. And as to the legal tendency which, according to
Hilary, the Judeo-Christian instructors had inculcated on the
Komans, it is clear that in the third or fourth century this
writer possessed no tradition on the subject ; nothing positive
was known at Eome in the second century regarding facts
otherwise of great importance, such as Paul's journey to Spain.
It was therefore a conclusion which he drew from the anti-
Jewish polemic which he thought he could trace in the Epistle
to the Eomans.

If any one is entitled to found on this passage, it would
seem to be not Baur, but Beyschlag. Yet even that would
not be exact; for Hilary nowhere says that those Eomans
wdio had been converted by the believing Jews of Eome
formerly belonged to Judaism as proselytes. The contrary is
rather to be inferred from the words he uses. Besides, Bey-
schlag's solution, during the twenty years that have elapsed
since it was proposed, has found only a single supporter, M.
Schurer (in his review of Hilgenfield's Introduction)} And
the fact is easily understood. For either the gospel reached
Eome through the synagogue, — and then how would the
proselytes have been in such a majority that the church could
have been, as Beyschlag admits, regarded as an essentially
Gentile-Christian community ? or the gospel spread to the
capital from the churches of Greece and Asia Minor, in which
the spiritualism of Paul was supreme, — and in that case whence
came the legal character with which Beyschlag supposes it to
have been impressed ? The hypothesis asserts too much or
too little. So Weizsacker and Schultz have not stopped foi
an instant to refute it.

The result of our study is, that the Eoman church was
mostly of Gentile origin and Pauline tendency, even before
the apostle addressed our letter to it. The formation of the
church was indirectly traceable to him, because its authors
proceeded for the most part from the churches of the East,
whose existence was due to his apostolic labours. Besides,
the recruiting of the church having taken place chiefly in the
midst of the Eoman, tliat is to say. Gentile population, Paul
^ Studkn unci Kritiken, 1876.

CHAP. II. J THE CHURCH OF ROME. 75

was entitled to regard it as belonging to the domain of the
apostle of the Gentiles. Of course this solution will not be
valid until it has passed the ordeal of the texts of the Epistle
itself.

The result which we have just reached renders it at once
more difficult and more easy to explain the course adopted by
the apostle in writing such a letter to tliis church.

For if it is easier to explain how he could by writing instruct
a church which came within the domain assigned to him by
tlie Lord, on the other hand it is more embarrassing to say
with what view he could repeat in writing to this church ail
that it should already have known.

CHAPTEK TTT.

THE EPISTLE.

rnO study the composition of this Epistle, which establishes
jL for the first time a relation between the apostle and the
church, we shall have three points to consider: — (1) the
author; (2) the circumstances of his life in which he composed
the letter; (3) the aim which he set before him. We shall
continue to avoid interrogating our Epistle except in so far as
the data which it may furnish are obvious at a glance, and
demand no exegetical discussion.

I. The AutJior.

The author declares himself to be Paul, the apostle of the
Gentiles (i. 1-7, xi. 13, xv. 15-20). The sending of the
letter pertains, in his view, to the fulfilling of the commis-
sion which he has received, " to bring all the Gentiles to the
obedience of the faith " (i. 5).

The unanimous tradition of the church is in harmony with
this declaration of the author.

Between the years 90 and 100 of our era, Clement, a
presbyter of the church of Eome, reproduced in chap. xxxv.
of his Epistle to the Corinthians the picture of the vices
of the Gentiles, such as it is traced in Rom. i. ; in chap.
xxxviii. he applies to the circumstances of his time the
exhortations which are addressed to the strong and the weak
in chap. xiv. of our Epistle. Our letter was therefore preserved
in the archives of the church of Rome, and recognised as a
work of the apostle whose name it bears.

It cannot be doubted that the author of the Epistle called
the Epistle of Barnabas (written probably in Egypt about 96),
when wi'iting his third chapter, had present to his mind Rom.

76

CHAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 77

iv. 1 1 et seq. : " I have set thee tr be a father of the nations
believing in the Lord in uncircumcision." ^

The letters of Ignatius again and again reproduce the anti-
thesis in the twofold origin of Jesus as Son of David and Son
of God, Kom. i. 3, 4.

In the Dialogue with TrypJio, chap, xxvii., Justin, about the
middle of the second century, repeats the enumeration of the
many biblical passages whereby Paul, Eom. iii., demonstrates
the natural corruption of man.

The Epistle to Diognetus says, chap, ix., not without allusion
to Eom. V. 18, 19: "That the iniquity of many may be
covered through righteousness, and that the righteousness of
one may justify many sinners."

The churches of Lyon and Vienne, in their letter to the
churches of Pontus (about 177), speak of their martyrs (Eus.
V. 1) : " Really proving that the sufferings of this present time"
etc. (Eom. viii. 18).

Many features of the picture of Gentile infamies, Rom. i,
reappear in the Apologies of Athenagoras and of Theophilus,
shortly after the middle of the second century. The latter
quotes Rom. ii. 6-9, and xiii. 7, 8 textually.

The so-called Canon of Muratori (hQtween 170 and 180)
places the Epistle to the Romans among the writings which
the church receives, and which should be read publicly.

The quotations made by Irenceus (56 times), Clement of
Alexandria, and Tertullian, are very numerous. It is only
from this time forward that Paul is expressly named in these
quotations as the author.

In the third century Origen, and in the fourth Eusebius, do
not mention any doubt as expressed on the subject of the
authenticity of our Epistle.

The testimony of heretics is not less unanimous than that
of the Fathers. Basilides, Ptolemceus, and very particularly
Marcion, from the first half of the second century onwards,
make use of our Epistle as an undisputed apostolical document.

Throughout the whole course of the past centuries, only two
theologians have contested this unanimous testimony of the
church and the sects. These are the English author Evanson,

^ As in Rom. : Tu» <riarivovru¥ ^i axpe^vffTias {nothing similar in the passage
of Geu. xvii. 5).

78 INTEODUCTION. [CHAP. Ill

in a work on the Gospels, of the last century, and Bruno Bauer,
in our own day, in Germany. They ask: — 1. Wliy does the
author of the Acts of the Apostles not say a word about a
work of such importance ? As if the Book of Acts were a
biography of the Apostle Paul ! 2. How are we to understand
the numerous salutations of chap, xvi., addressed to a church
in which Paul had never lived ? As if (granting that this
page of salutations really belongs to our Epistle) the apostle
could not have known all these persons in Greece and the
East who were now living at Eome, as we shall prove in
the case, for example, of Aquila and Priscilla ! 3. How can
we hold the existence of a church at Eome so considerable
as our Epistle supposes before the arrival of any apostlo
in the city ? As if the founding of the church of Antioch
did not furnish us with a sufficient precedent to solve the
question 1

Thus there is nothing to prevent us from accepting the
testimony of the church, which is confirmed, besides, by the
grandeur which betrays a master, and the truly apostolic
power of the work itself, as well as by its complete harmony
in thought and style with the other writings acknowledged to
be the apostle's.

II. The Date.

The external circumstances in which this letter was com-
posed are easily made' out.

1. Paul had not yet visited Eome (i. 10-13) ; this excludes
every date posterior to the spring of the year 62, when he
arrived in the city.

2. The apostle is approaching the end of his ministry in the
East. From Jerusalem to Illyria he has filled every place
with the preaching of the gospel of Christ ; now he must seek
a field of labour westward, at the extremity of Europe, in Spain,
XV. 18-24. Paul could not have written these words before
the end of his residence at Ephesus, which lasted probably from
the autumn of 54 to the Pentecost of 57.

3. At the time he wrote he was stiU free ; for he was dis-
cussing his plans for travelling, xv. 23-25. It was therefore
at a period previous to his arrest at Jerusalem (Pentecost of
the year 59)»

CHAP, iil] the epistle. 79

The interval which remains available is thus reduced to the
short period from the year 57 to 59.

4. At the time when he wrote, he was about to start for
Jerusalem, at the head of a numerous deputation charged with
carrying to the mother church the fruits of a collection
organized on its behalf in all the churches of the Gentile
world (Kom. xv. 24-28). When he wrote his first Epistle to
the Corinthians (Pentecost 57), and a year and a half later
(unless I am mistaken) his second (summer 58), the collec-
tion was not yet finished, and he did not know at that time
whether it would be liberal enough to warrant his going
himself to present it to the church of Jerusalem (1 Cor.
xvi. 1-4; 2 Cor. viii. and ix.). All is completed when he
writes the Epistle to the Eomans, and the question of his
taking part personally in the mission is decided (xv. 28).
This indication brings us to the time immediately preceding
Paul's departure from Corinth for Jerusalem, which took place
in March 59.

5. Finally, we are struck with the sort of anxiety which
appears in the words used, xv. 3 0—3 2 : " Strive together with
me in your prayers to God for me, that I may be delivered
from them that do not believe in Judea." We recognise in
this passage the disquieting presentiments which came out in
all the churches at that point in the apostle's life, when he
went to face for the last time the hatred of the inhabitants
and authorities of Jerusalem (comp. Acts xx. 22, 23, xxi. 4,
10-12). The Epistle to the Romans was therefore written
very shortly before his departure for that city.

To fix the point exactly, it remains only to attempt to
determine the place of its composition.

1. xvi. 1, he recommends Phebe, a deaconess of Cenchrea,
the port of Corinth, on the Egean Sea. It is therefore probable
that if this passage really belongs to the Epistle to the Eomans,
Paul wrote from Corinth or its neighbourhood.

2. He names Gains as his host (xvi. 23). This is probably
the same person as is mentioned in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians (i. 1 4) as being one of the earliest converts of that
city.

3. He sends a greeting from Erastus, treasurer of the city,
xvi. 23. It is probable that this person is the same as we

80 INTRODUCTION. (CHA.P. III.

find mentioned, 2 Tim. iv. 20, in these words: "Erastus abode
at Corinth,"

These indications lead us to conclude with great probability
that Corinth was the place of composition. This result agrees
with the preceding one relative to the date. In fact, mention is
made in Acts xx. 2 of a three months' stay made by Paul in
Hellas, that is to say, in the southern part of Greece, of which
Corinth was the capital. This stay immediately preceded
Paul's departure for Jerusalem, and took place, consequently,
in the months of December 58, and January and February 59.

So it was during this time of repose that the apostle, after
so many anxieties and labours, found the calm necessary for
composing such a work. The time was solemn. The first
part of his apostolic task was finished. The East, wholly
evangelized in a way, lay behind him ; he had before him the
West still enveloped in the darkness of paganism, but which
belonged also to the domain assigned him by the Lord. In
the midst of this darkness he discerns a luminous point, the
church of Rome. On this he fixes his eye before entering on
the journey to Italy in person.

We shall see if the Epistle to the Eomans corresponds to
the solemnity of the situation.

III. The Aim.

Critics differ as much in regard to the aim of our Epistle
as they are agreed about its date and authenticity. Since
Baur's time the subject has become one of the most contro-
verted in the whole range of New Testament criticism.

The question stands thus : If we assign a special practical
aim to the Epistle, we put ourselves, as it seems, in contra-
diction to the very general and quasi-systematic character of
its contents. If, on the contrary, we ascribe to it a didactic
and wholly general aim, it differs thereby from the other
letters of St. Paul, all of which spring from some particular
occasion, and have a definite aim. The author of the oldest
critical study of the New Testament which we possess, the
so-called Fragment of Muratori, wrote thus about the middle
of the second century : " St. Paul's letters themselves reveal
clearly enough, to any one who wishes to know, in what

CHAP, iil] the epistle. 81

place and with what view they were coraposed." If lie had
lived among the discussions of our day, he would certainly
not have expressed himself thus about our Epistle. What
increases the difficulty is, that the letter is not addressed to
a church which Paul had himself founded, and cannot be
regarded, like his other Epistles, as the continuation of his
missionary work. Let us add, finally, the sort of obscurity
which, as we have seen, rests on the founding of this church,
and consequently on the nature of its composition and its
religious tendency, and we shall understand how an almost
numberless multitude of opinions should have been broached,
especially in the present day, regarding the intention of the
letter. It seems to us possible to distribute the proposed
sohitions into three principal groups.

The first starts from the fact that all the other Epistles of
the apostle owe their origin to some special occasion, and
ascribes to this one a practical and definite aim. In the
situation of Paul's work, and at the time when he was pre-
paring to transfer his mission to the West, it concerned him
to acquire or to make sure of the sympathy of the Roman
church, destined as it was to become his point of support in
those new countries, as Antioch had been in the East. Our
Epistle, on this view, was the means chosen to obtain this
result. Its aim was thus apologetic.

Diametrically opposed to this first group is a second, which
takes account especially of the general and systematic character
of the Epistle. Such contents do not seem to be compatible
with the intention of obtaining a particular practical result.
The apostle, it is therefore held, simply proposed to instruct
and edify the church of Rome. The aim of the letter was
didactic.

Between these two groups stands a third, which admits,
indeed, the aim of teaching, but that with a definite inten-
tion, namely, to combat the legal Judeo- Christianity which
was already dominant, or at least threatening to become so,
within the Roman church. Our Epistle, consequently, had
a 'polemic intention.

We proceed to review these three groups, each containing
numerous shades of opinion. That which we have indicated
in the third place, evidently forming the transition between

GODET. F KOM. I.

82 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. III.

the other two, we shall treat second in the following ex-
position.

FIRST GROUP : APOLOGETIC AIM.

The way was opened in this direction at one and the same
time (1836) by Credner and Baur/ The apostle wishes to
prepare for himself a favourable reception in the principal
church of the West; such is the general view^point, which
is variously modified by the different adherents of this con-
ception.

I. The most precise and sharply defined situation is that
supposed by Baur. The church of Eome, being in the great
majority of its members Judeo - Christian by origin, and
particularistic in tendency, could not look on Paul's mission
to the Gentiles otherwise than with dislike. No doubt,
Jewish Christianity no longer desired at Eome, as it had
done formerly in Galatia, to impose circumcision on the
Gentiles ; it did not attack, as at Corinth, Paul's apostolic
dignity and moral character. But the Christians of Eome
asked if it was just and agreeable to God's promises to admit
the Gentiles en masse into the church, as Paul was doing,
before the Jewish people had taken their legitimate place in
it. It was not wished to exclude the Gentiles. But it was
maintained that, in virtue of the right of priority granted to
Israel, they ought not to enter till the chosen nation had
done so. Paul feels deeply that a church so minded cannot
serve as the point of support for his mission in the West, that
it will rather put a hindrance in his way. And hence, at the
last stage of his sojourn in Greece, during the three months of
rest which are allowed him at Corinth, he writes this letter to
the Eomans, with the view of completely rooting out the
prejudice from which their repugnance to his mission springs.
Not only has the right of priority, to which Israel pretends,
no existence, since the righteousness of faith has now for all
time replaced that of the law, but the conversion of the

' Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1836, § 142. Baur, TuUnger Zeit-
Bchrift, 3 Heft : Ueber Zweck imd Veranlassung des Roraerbriefs. This forms
tlie original work which tlie autlior reproduced in his Paulus, 1st edition,
18J5, and afterwards completed in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857. The author
gradually softened his first conception ; this is most of all apparent in his last
••xposition : Das Chrktmtkum und die Christl. Kirche, etc., 1860, p. 62 et seq.

THE EPISTIaE. 83

Gentiles, for whicli Paul is labouring, will be the very means
which God will use to bring back the hostile Jews to Him-
self. It will be seen that, on this view, the great outline of
the ways of God, ix— xi., far from being, as is commonly
thought, a simple appendix, forms the central part of the
letter, that in which its true intention is expressed. The
whole preceding exposition of the righteousness of faith
forms its admirable preface.^

T lie treatise of Baur produced at the time of its appearance
an effect similar to Ihat caused eight years afterwards by a
like work on the Gospel of John. The learned world was as
it were fascinated ; men thought they were on the eve of a
sort of revelation. From the dazzling effect then produced
criticism is only slowly recovering at the present day.
Credner's work was less developed and less striking ; he only
added to the idea which we have just indicated in the form
presented by Baur an original feature, which has recently
been revived by Holsten. We mean the relation between
tha composition of the Epistle to the Eomans and the large
amount of the collection made in behalf of the church of
Jerusalem at the same period. At the very time that he was
endeavouring by this work of love to influence the metropolis
of Jewish Christianity in the East, his practical genius sought
by means of our Epistle to acquire a point of support for his
mission in the most important Jewish Christian church of the
West. So understood the letter becomes an act, a real and
serious work, as is naturally to be expected from a man like
Paul composing such a treatise.

The following, however, are the reasons which have pre-
vailed with science more and more to reconsider its verdict : —
1. It has been found impossible to accept the very forced
explanations by which Baur has laboured to get rid of the
passages attesting the Gentile origin and the Pauline tendency
of the church of Home. — 2. An attempt at conquest, such as
that which Baur ascribes to Paul, has been felt to be incom-

^ Baur expresses himself thus : " The apostle's intention is to refute Jewish
particularism so radically that it shall remain like an uprooted tree in the
consciousness of the age. . . . The absolute nullity of every claim founded on
particularism : such is the fundamental idea of the Epistle " {Pcmlus, 2d ed. I.
p. SSO).

84 INTRODUCTION. [ClIAP. IIL

patible with the principle professed by him in our very
Epistle, not to huild on another man's foundation. In this
case Paul would be doing even worse ; he would be intro-
ducing himself into a house wholly built by strange hands,
and would be seeking to install himself in it with his whole
staff of apostolic aides ; this, no doubt, with a view to the
work of Christ, but would the end justify the means ? — 3. The
idea which Baur ascribes to the Christians of Eome, that of
restricting the preaching of the gospel to the Jews until the
whole elect people should become believers, is a strange and
monstrous conception, of which there is not the slightest trace
either in the New Testament or in any work of Christian
antiquity. The Judaizers, on the contrary, strongly approved
of the conversion of the Gentiles, insisting only on the con-
dition of circumcision (Gal. v. 11, vi. 13). To refuse to the
Gentiles the preaching of salvation till it should please the
Jews to become converts, would have been an aggravation,
and not at all, as Baur says, an attenuation of the old Jewish
pretensions. — 4. It is impossible from this point of view to
account for the detailed instruction with which the Epistle
opens (i.-viii.), and in particular for the description of the
corruption of the Gentiles (chap. i.). If all that was only
intended to provide a justification of the missionary course
followed by the apostle, stated ix.-xi., was not Schwegler
right in saying " that such an expenditure of means was out
of proportion to the end in view " ? It is not less difficult
to explain from this standpoint the use of the moral part,
especially of chap. xii. — 5. In general, the horizon of the
Epistle is too vast, its exposition too systematic, its tone too
calm, to allow us to ascribe to it the intention of making a
conquest, or to see in it something like a mine destined to
spring the ramparts of a hostile position. — 6. This explana-
tion comes very near to compromising the moral character
of Paul. What Baur did not say, his disciple Holsten
frankly confesses in our day.-^ After quoting these words of
Volkmar : " that the Epistle to the Eomans is the maturest
fruit of Paul's mind," this critic adds : " But it must, at the
same time, be confessed that it is not its purest work. Under

Mn his article: " Der Gedankengaug des Rbmerbriefs," Jahrb. f. prot.
Theol 1879.

CHAr. III.] THE EPISTLE. 85

the pressure of a iiractical want, that of reconciling the Jewish
Christians to his gospel . . ., Paul has not l^Q^t— and he knows
it vjcll himself — at the height of his own thought . . ; he has
hlunted the edge of his gospel!' If, to bear out the exposition
of Baur and his school, one must go the length of making the
Epistle to the Eornans a work of Jesuitism, we think that
this solution is judged.

Baur has cited the testimony of Hilary (Amhrosiaster), who
says of the Eornans : " Who, having been wrongly instructed
by the Judaizers, were immediately corrected (by this letter)."^
But even on this point it has been shown that Hilary's opinion
w^as wholly different from Baur's; since, according to the
former, the Judaizers, who had led the Komans into error in
regard to the law, were absolutely the same as those who had
troubled Antioch and Galatia ; ^ while, according to Baur, those
of Kome made entirely different pretensions.

11. The difficulties which had led even Baur to modify hia
view have forced critics who are attached in the main to his
opinion to soften it still more considerably. The critic whom
we may regard as the principal representative of Baur's cor-
rected exposition is Mangold.^ According to this author, the
church of Eome, while Judeo-Christian in its majority, and
legal in its tendency, had not the strictly particularistic con-
ception which Baur ascribes to it. It was merely imbued
with certain prejudices against Paul and his work ; it did not
know what to think of that wide propagation of a gospel
without law in the Gentile world. The general abandonment
of Mosaism, which the missionary action of the apostle
brought in its train, appeared to it to endanger the Lord's
work, and even the morality of those multitudes of believing
Gentiles. Paul, therefore, on the eve of transferring his
activity to the West, felt the need of reassuring the Eomans
as to the spirit of his teaching, and the consequences of his
work. In i.-viii, he seeks to make them understand his
doctrine ; in ix.— xi. he explains to them his mission. He
hopes thereby to succeed in gaining a powerful auxiliary in
his new field of labour. — This view has obtained a prettj

^ Quiy male inducti, statim correcii sunt, . . .

' Philippi has quoted these words : Hi aunt qui el Galatas suhverterant. , .

• lu the work akeady quoted, Der RoTnerhriefy etc., 1866.

86 INTEODUCTTOJT. [CHAP. III.

general assent; it is found wholly or in part in Thiersch,
Holtzmann, Eitschl, Beyschlag, Hausrafch, Schenkel, Schultz,
as also in Sabatier.^ It has its best support in the anti-
Judaistic tendency, which may, with some measure of proba-
bility, be ascribed to various parts of the Epistle. But it
has not the perfect transparency of Baur's view ; it is hard
to know wherein those prejudices of the Eoman church
against Paul's work consist, neither springing from Judaizing
legality, properly so called, nor from the exceptional point of
view imagined by Baur. — Besides, as directed to a church not
strictly Judaizing, what purpose would be served by the long
preface of the first eight chapters, pointed against the right-
eousness of the law ? What end, especially in the line of
justifying Paul's missionary practice, would be served by the
moral part, xii.-xiv., which has not the slightest connection
with his work ? Here, certainly, we can apply the saying of
Schwegler, " that the expenditure of means is disproportioned
to the end." There remain, finally, all the reasons which we
have alleged against the Judeo-Christian composition of the
church.

III. While acknowledcrinsj the Gentile oricjin of the ma-
jority of the church, and the Pauline character of its faith,
Schott and Kiggenbach^ think that the object of the Epistle
is simply to awaken and quicken its sympathy with Paul's
work, on the eve of his passing to the West. — But in thai
case the extravagance of the means employed becomes still
more startling. To demonstrate in the outset in eight long
chapters the truth of Paul's gospel to a Pauline church, in
order to obtain its missionary co-operation, would not this be
idle work — ^labour lost ?

It is true that Schott, to meet this difficulty, imagines an
objection raised at Eome to Paul's future mission in the
West. The East, says he, was fall of Jewish communities ;
so that, while labouring in these countries for the Gentiles,
Paul was at the same time labouring, up to a certain point,
in the midst of Jews, and for their good. But it was wholly
otherwise in the West, where the Jews were not so plentifully

* Uapdtre Paul, p. 159 et seq.

° Schott, work quoted. Eiggenbach, Zeltschrift fur lutkerlsche Theologk
und Kirclie (review of Mangold's work), 1866.

CTTAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 87

scattered. Here Paul's work must necessarily be severed
from action on the Jewish people. Paul, anticipating the
accusations which would arise from this fact, writes the
Epistle to the Komans in order to obviate them. — But the
difference which Schott lays down on this head between the
East and the West does not rest on any historical proof.
And, as Beyschlag rightly asks, " What strange believers
those Christians of Eome must have been, who, while them-
selves enjoying the blessings of salvation, notwithstanding
their Gentile origin, imagined that those same blessings could
not be offered to the other Western Gentiles till after Israel
had been wholly converted ! "

IV. Hofmann has given to the apologetic intention an
altogether particular complexion. Our letter, he would have
it, is the personal justification of Paul in reference to the long
delays which had retarded his arrival at Eome. It was in-
tended to prove that a gospel such as his leaves no room in
the heart of its apostle for feelings of shame or lukewarm-
ness. And thus it sought to secure a favourable reception for
his person and mission. The object of his letter is conse-
quently to be found revealed in i. 14-16. — But is it possible
to conceive so broad and authoritative a scheme of doctrine
as that of the Epistle to the Eomans, given with a view so
narrow and personal ? The passage, i. 14-16, may have served
as a preface for Paul to his subject ; but it cannot express
the aim of the Epistle.

In general, Paul might certainly expect, as a fruit of this
letter, an increase of sympathy for his person and mission ;
and the great change which was about to pass over his life
and work would naturally lead him to desire this result.
But it must have been a more urgent reason which led him
to take pen in hand, and to give a fuller and more systematic
exposition of his gospel than he had bestowed on any other
church.

SECOND GROUP : POLEMIC AIM.

The authors belonging to this group do not find in our
Epistle the proof of any aim relating to the apostle himself
and to his missionary work. The aim of the letter, in their
view, is to be explained solely by the state of the church to

88 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. Ill

which it is addressed. The object to be accomplished was to
destroy the legal tendency at Eome, or to render its introduction
impossible ; and so, according to some, to bring about union
and peace between the two parties of the church.

I. Thus Hilary spoke in this direction: "The Christians
of Rome had allowed Mosaic rites to be imposed on them, as
if full salvation were not to be found in Christ ; Paul wished
to teach them the mystery of the cross of Christ, which had
not yet been expounded to them." Similar words are to be
found in many of the Fathers, as well as in some Eeformers
and modern theologians (Augustine, Melanchthon, Flatt, etc.).
The opinion of Thiersch is also substantially the same : " The
church of Eome having been left by Peter in a state of doc-
trinal inferiority, Paul sought to raise it to the full height of
Christian knowledge." Volkmar, too, would seem to adhere
to this opinion. He calls our Epistle " a war and peace treatise,
intended to reconcile a strictly Judeo-Christian church to the
free preaching of the gospel." This explanation suits the
grave and didactic character of the fundamental part, i.-viii.,
as well as the express statement of the theme, i. 16, 17.
Only it is not easy to understand how Paul could have con-
gratulated his readers on the type of doctrine according to
which they had been taught, as he does xi. 17, if his inten-
tion had been to substitute a new conception of the gospel for
theirs. We have found, besides, that the majority of the
church was not Judeo-Christian in tendency.

II. From early times down to our own day, many have
thought that Paul's polemic against Jewish legalism was in-
tended to bring about the union of the two parties at Eome.
We shall cite in particular, in the Middle Ages, Eabanus
Maurus and Ab^lard ; in modern times, Eichhorn (partly),
Flatt, Hug, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Hodge, etc. Hug thinks that
after the Jews, who had been banished from Eome by the
edict of Claudius, returned, a new treaty of union became
necessary between the Christians of Gentile and those of
Jewish origin. This Eirenicon was the Epistle to the Eomans,
which revolves entirely round this idea : " Jews and Gentiles
are equal before God ; their rights and weaknesses are similar ;
and if any advantage existed in favour of the one body, it
was abolished by Christ, who united all in one universal

CHAP. ITT.] THE EPISTLE. 89

religion." Hilgenfeld ascribes to Paul the intention of unit-
ing the rich Judeo- Christian aristocracy with the numerous
'plebs of Gentile origin. Hodge, the celebrated American
commentator, denies the prevalence of a Judaizing tendency
in the church of Eome, but thinks, nevertheless, *•' that
conflicts now and again arose, both regarding doctrine and
discipline, between the believers of the two races," and tliat
this was the occasion of our Epistle. The view of Bauni-
garten-Crusius is almost the same : " This exposition of the
Pauline conception is intended to unite believing Jews
and Gentiles in forwarding the common work." ^ From
this point of view the passage, xiv. 1— xv. 13, must be
regarded as containing the aim of the Epistle. But this piece,
bearing as it does the character of a simple appendix,
cannot play so decisive a part ; and it would be inconceiv-
able that, up to that point, Paul should have given neither
in the preface nor in the course of the letter the least sign of
this conciliatory intention ; for, finally, when he demonstrates
the complete parity of Gentiles and Jews, both in respect of
the condemnation under which they lie and of the faith which
is the one condition of salvation for all, he nowhere thinks of
bringing Jews and Gentiles into union with one another, but
of glorifying the greatness of salvation and the mercy of God
its author.

III. Weizsacker (see at p. 71) also holds the anti-Jewish
tendency of our Epistle. But as he recognises the Gentile-
Christian composition of the church, and cannot consequently
admit the predominance of the legal spirit in such a com-
munity, he supposes that the time had come when the Judaizing
attack which had assailed all the churches of Paul was be-
ginning to trouble it also, " The ,church was not Judaizing,
but it was worked by Judaizers." This situation, supposed by
Weizsacker, is perfectly similar to that described in Phil. i.
Paul's aim, accordingly, was this : he does not wish to
attach, as Baur thought, but to defend ; he wishes to preserve,

* Holsten, too, has words to the same effect : ** At the height of his triumph
it Corinth, Paul felt for the first time the want and the necessity of a reconcilia-
tion between Gentile-Christian Christianity and that of the Judeo-CLristians.
The Epistle to the Romans is the first of those letters of peace and union which
sought to satisfy tliis want of the aew rcli;;ion."

90 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. III.

not to acquire. Thus the fundamental part on the righteous-
ness of faith and the sanctification flowing from it (i.-viii.)
finds an easy explanation. Thus, too, we have no difficulty
in understanding the famous passage, ix.-xi., which is in-
tended, not, as most modern critics since Baur suppose, to
justify the missionary practice of Paul, but to solve this
problem raised by the progress of events : How does it
happen, if this gospel of Paul is the truth, that the Jews, the
elect people, everywhere reject it ?

One has a feeling of satisfaction and relief after reading
this excellent work, so judicious and impartial ; one feels as
if he had reached shelter from the sweeping current, the
spirit of prejudice which has swayed criticism for forty years.
And yet it is impossible for us to accept this solution. How,
if our Epistle was occasioned by a violent Judaizing aggres-
sion, is there no trace of the fact throughout the whole of the
letter, and especially in the introductory passage, i. 8-15?
St. Paul there congratulates the Eomans on their faith, and
yet makes not the slightest allusion to the dangers which it
runs at that very moment, and which form the occasion
of his writing ! How could the moral part, from chap,
xii. onwards, present no trace whatever of this polemical
tendency ? Weizsacker confesses the fact, but explains it by
saying that Jewish legalism had only just been imported into
the church, and had not yet affected its moral life. This
answer is not sufficient ; for it is precisely by forms and
observances that ritualism strives to act. In the Epistle to
the Galatians, written in a similar situation to that which
Weizsacker supposes, the anti-Judaistic polemic is quite as
emphatically brought out in the moral part as in the doctrinal
exposition ; comp. v. 6 et seq. ; then ver. 1 4, and especially
the interjected remarks, ver. 18: "If ye are led by the
Spirit, ye are not under the law ;" ver. 23 : " The law is not
against such things" (the fruits of the Spirit); comp. also
Gal. vi. 12-16. We shall have to examine elsewhere in
the course of exposition the passage, Rom. xvi. 17-20,
where Paul puts the church on its guard against the arrival
of Judaizers as a probable fact, but one yet to come. Finally,
notwithstanding all the ability of this critic, we think that he
has not entirely succeeded in explaining the complete differ-

CHAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 91

ence between the Epistle to tlie Eomans, so calm and coldly
didactic, and that to the Galatians, so abrupt and vehement in
its tone.

IV. There is a view which to some extent gives weight
to these objections, while still maintaining the anti-Judaistic
character of the Epistle. We mean the solution which was
already propounded at the time of the Preformation by.
Erasmus, and reproduced in our day by Philippi, Tholuck
(last edition), and in a measure by Beyschlag. Paul, who
found himself pursued by Judaizing emissaries at Antioch, in
Galatia, and at Corinth, naturally foresees their speedy arrival
at Eome ; and as, when a city is threatened by an enemy, its
walls are fortified and it is prepared for a siege ; so the apostle,
by the powerful and decisive teaching contained in our
'Ei^istle, fortifies the Pioman church, and puts it in a condition
to resist the threatening attack victoriously. Nothing more
natural than this situation and the preventive intention of our
Epistle connected with it; the explanation harmonizes well
with the term strengthening, which the apostle frequently uses
to express the effect which he would like to produce by his
work within the church (i. 11, xvi. 25). The only question
is, whether so considerable a treatise could have been com-
posed solely with a view to a future and contingent want.
Then there is not in the whole letter more than a single
allusion to the possible arrival of the Judaizers (xvi. 17-20).
How could this word thrown in by the way at the close, after
the salutations, reveal the intention which dictated the letter,
unless we are to ascribe to the apostle the course which ladies
are said to follow, of putting the real thought of their letter
into the postscript ?

V. An original solution, which also belongs to this group of
interpretations, has been offered by Ewald.^ According to him,
Christianity had remained hitherto enveloped in the Jewish
religion ; but Paul began to dread the consequences of this
solidarity. For he foresaw the conflict to the death which
was about to take place between the Roman empire and the
Jewish people, now becoming more and more fanaticized. The
Epistle to the Romans is written with the view of breaking
the too close and compromising bond which still united the

^ Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulas, 1857.

92 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. ITI.

synagogue and the cliurch, and which threatened to drag the
latter into foolish enterprises. The practical aim of the
writing would thus appear in chap. xiii. in the exhortation
addressed to Christians to obey the higher powers ordained of
God in the political domain ; and the entire Epistle would be
intended to demonstrate the profound incompatibility between
the Jewish and the Christian spirit, and so to establish this
application. One cannot help admiring in this theory the
originality of Ewald's genius, but we cannot make up our
mind to attach such decisive importance to the warning of
chap. xiii. ; for this passage is only a subdivision of the moral
instruction, which is itself only the second part of the didactic
exposition. So subordinate a passage cannot express the aim
of the Epistle.

We are at the end of the solutions derived from the danger
which the Eoman church is alleged to have been then incur-
ring from the legal principle, whether as a present enemy or
a threatening danger. And we are thus brought to the third
class of explanations, composed of all those which despair of
finding a local and temporary aim for Paul's Epistle.

THIRD GROUP : DIDACTIC AIM.

According to the critics who belong to this group, the
Epistle to the Eomans is a systematic exposition of Christian
truth, and has no other aim than to enlighten and strengthen
the faith of the Christians of Eome in the interest of their
salvation.

Thus the author of the ancient Muratori Fragment says
simply : " The apostle expounds to the Eomans the plan of
the Scriptures by inculcating the fact that Christ is their first
principle."

The ancient Greek expositors, Origen, Chrysostom, Theo-
doret, with those of the Middle Ages, such as John of
Damascus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, seek no more mysterious
aim than this : to guide men to Christ. But why especially
address such instruction to the church of Eome ? Theophylact
answers : " What does good to the head, thereby does tlie same
to the whole body." This answer betrays a time when Eome
had come to occupy the central place in the church.

CHAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 93

Our Eeformers and their successors have almost the same
idea of our Epistle : " The whole of this Epistle," says Calvin,
" is composed methodically." ^ Paul, says Melanchthon, has
drawn up in the Epistle to the Eomans " the summary of
Christian doctrine,^ though he has not philosophized in this
writing either on the mysteries of the Trinity, or on the mode
of the incarnation, or on creation active and passive. Is it
not in reality on the law, on sin, and on grace, that the
knowledge of Christ depends ? "

Grotius thus expresses himself : " Though addressed strictly
speaking to the Eomans, this letter contained all the provisions
(munimenta) of the Christian religion, so that it well deserved
that copies of it should be sent to other churches." So he
thinks he can explain the use of the Greek instead of the
Latin language. He thus anticipates a recent hypothesis, of
which we shall speak by and by. Tholuck in his first
editions, and Olshausen in his excellent commentary, also
think that Paul's aim was wholly general. He wished to show
how the gospel, and the gospel only, fully answers to the need
of salvation attaching to every human soul, a want which
neither paganism nor Judaism can satisfy. Glockler, Kollner,
Eeiche, and de Wette likewise adhere to this view ; the latter
at the same time establishing a connection between the evan-
gelical universalism expounded in our Epistle, and the position
of Eome as the centre of the empire of the world. Meyer
also, while fully sharing this view, feels the need of showing
how the teaching was rooted in actual circumstances. He
thinks that Paul has here expounded the gospel as it appeared
to him at the close of the great struggle with Judaism from
which he had just emerged, and as he would have preached it
at Eome had he been able to go thither personally.

M. Eeuss in his last work {Les dpitrcs pauliniennes) escapes
from Baur's view, which had previously exercised a very
marked influence over him. The absence of all polemic in
our Epistle indicates, he thinks, that the apostle addresses this
exposition of the essence of the gospel to an ideal puhlic. In
reality, are not the wants of all the churches substantially the

' " E-pistola tola methodica eat."

* *' DoctrincB cJiristiance compendium^' (Introduction to the Loci communeA
of 1621).

94 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. III.

same ? Only he ascribes to the apostle the special desire of
making the church of Eome " the focus of light for the West."

M. Eenan explains our Epistle by the importance of the
church of Eome and the apostle's desire to give it a token of
his sympathy. " He took advantage of an interval of rest to
write in an epistolary form a sort of r^sum^ of his theological
teaching, and he addressed it to this church, composed of
Ebionites and Judeo- Christians, but embracing also proselytes
and Gentile converts." This is not all. The careful analysis
of chap. XV. and xvi. leads M. Eenan to conclude that the
letter was simultaneously addressed to three other churches,
that of Ephesus, that of Thessalonica, and a fourth church
unknown. This writer draws a picture of Paul's disciples all
occupied in making copies of this manifesto intended for the
different churches (Saint Paul, p. 481).

The force of all these explanations lies in the general and
systematic tenor of the Epistle to the Eomans. It is this
characteristic which distinguishes it from all the others, except
that to the Ephesians. But the weakness of these solutions
appears — 1. In the difference which they establish between
this letter and Paul's other writings. " Such an Epistle," says
Baur, " would be a fact without analogy in the apostle's
career. It would not correspond to the true Pauline epistolary
type." 2. In the fact that aU these explanations utterly fail
satisfactorily to answer the question : Why this systematic
teaching addressed to Eome and not elsewhere ? 3. In
the serious omissions from the system. Melanchthon was
struck with this. We instance two of them especially : the
omission of the doctrines relating to the person of Christ and
to the end of all things, Christology and Eschatology.

But these objections do not appear to us to be insoluble.
What, indeed, if these two characteristics which seem to be
mutually contradictory, the local destination and the generality
of the contents, were exactly the explanation of one another ?
In the so varied course of apostolic history might there not
be found a particular church which needed general teaching ?
And was not this precisely the case with the church of
Eome?

We know that Paul did not omit, when he founded a church,
to give those who were attracted by the name of Christ pro-

CUAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 95

found and detailed instruction regarding the gospel. Thiersch
has thoroughly demonstrated this fact.^ Paul refers to it in
the question so frequently repeated in his Epistles : Know ye
not that . . . ? which often applies to points of detail on which
a pastor does not even touch in our day in the instruction
which he gives to his catechumens.^ The Book of Acts relates
that at Ephesus Paul gave a course of Christian instruction in
the school of the rhetorician Tyrannus every day for two whole
years. What could be the subject of those daily and prolonged
conferences, and that in a city like Ephesus ? Most certainly
Paul did not speak at random ; he followed some order or
other. Starting from the moral nature of man, his natural
powers of knowledge and his indestructible wants,^ he showed
the fall of man, the turpitude of the Gentile world,^ and the
inadequacy of Judaism to supply an efficacious remedy for
human misery.^ Thus he came to the means of salvation
offered by God Himself.^ From this point he cast a look
backwards at the ancient revelation and its several aspects,
the patriarchal promise and the Mosaic law7 He showed the
essential unity and the radical difference between the law and
the gospel.^ In this retrospective glance he embraced the
entire history of humanity, showing the relation between its
fall in one man and its restoration in one.^ Finally, on this
basis he raised the edifice of the new creation. He revealed
the mystery of the church, the body of the glorified Christ,
the sanctification of the individual and of the family/^ the
relation between Christianity and the State ;^^ and unfolding
the aspects of the divine plan in the conversion of the nations,^
he led up to the restitution of all things, physical nature itself
included, and to the glory to come.^^

He did what he does in his Epistles, and particularly in the
most systematic of all, the Epistle to the Romans. Baur lias
alleged that the apostles had no time, in the midst of their
missionary labours, to systematize the gospel, and to compose

^ Versuch zur Herstellung des Idstor. Standpunhts, p. 91 et seq.
' The coming of Antichrist, 2 Thess. ii. 15 ; the judgment of angels by
believers, 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3.
3 Rom. i. 19, 20, ii. 14, 16. * Rom. i. 23-31. » Rom. ii. 1-iii. 20.

« Rom. iii. 21-26. ^ Qal. iii. 15-17. « Rom. iv., x.

9 Rom. V. 12-21. 1° Rom. xii.; Eph. i., iv. 1-vi. 9.

^^ Rom. xiii. ^ Rom. ix.-xL ^^ Rom. viii. : 1 Cor. xv.

96 INTRODUCTION. [CIIAP. III.

a Christian dogmatic. But could Baur suppose that a mind
of such strength as Paul's was could liave lectured for two
years before an audience like the cultivated class of the Ephe-
sian population/ without having at least traced an outline of
Christian doctrine ?

Now, this apostolic instruction which Paul gave with so
much care in the churches which he founded, and which was
the real basis of those spiritual edifices, he had not given at
Rome. Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus had enjoyed it ;
the church of the Capital of the world had been deprived of
it. Here the message had preceded the messenger. A com-
munity of believers had been formed in this city witliout his
assistance. No doubt he reckoned on being there himself
soon ; but once more he might be prevented ; he knew how
many dangers attended his approaching journey to Jerusalem.
And besides, should he arrive at Rome safe and sound, he had
too much tact to think of putting the members of such a
church as it were on the catechumen's bench. In these
circumstances, how natural the idea of filling up by means
of writing the blank which Providence had permitted, and of
giving, in an epistolary treatise addressed to the church, the
Christian instruction which it had missed, and which was
indispensable to the solidity of its faith ! The apostle of the
Gentiles was not able to establish the church in the metro-
polis of the Gentile world . . ., the w^ork was taken out of
his hands ; what shall he do ? He will found it anew.
Under the already constructed edifice he will insinuate a
powerful substruction — to wit, his apostolic doctrine systema-
tically arranged, as he expounds it everywhere else viva voce.

If such is the origin of the Epistle to the Romans, we have
in it nothing less than the course of religious instruction, and
in a way the dogmatic and moral catechism of St. Paul. In
this explanation there is no occasion for the question why
this instruction was addressed to Rome rather than to any
other church. Rome was the only great church of the
Gentile world to which Paul felt himself burdened with such
a debt. This is the prevailing thought in the preface of his
Epistle, and by whicli he clears the way for the treatment of
his subject (i. 13-16). After reminding the Romans that
* See Acts xix. 31.

CHAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 97

they too, as Gentiles, belong to the domain confided to his
apostleship, i. 1—6, he accounts, from ver. 8, for the involun-
tary delays which have retarded his arrival at Eome; and so
comes at length to speak of the evangelical doctrine which he
desired to impart viva voce, and which he now addresses to
them in writing. Nothing could explain more naturally the
transition from ver. 15 to ver. 16. The systematic form of
the treatise which begins here, the expressly formulated theme
which serves as its basis (i. 16, 17), the methodical develop-
ment of the theme, first in a dogmatic part, L— xi., then in a
moral part, xii.-xv. 13 (wliich is not less systematically
arranged than the former), — all these features demonstrate
that the author here intends to give a didactic exposition.

No doubt there are blanks, as we have already acknow-
ledged, in this summary of Christian truth, and we cannot in
this respect compare it with our modern dogmatic systems.
But the limits which Paul traced for himself are not difficult
to understand. They were indicated by those of the personal
revelation which he had received. The phrase: my gospel,
which he uses twice in this Epistle (and only once again iu
his other letters), sufficiently indicates the domain within
which he intended to confine himself. Within the general
Christian revelation with which all the apostles were charged,
Paul had received a special part, his lot, if one may so speak.
This is what he calls, Eph. iii. 2, " the dispensation of the
grace wliich had been committed to him." This part was
neither the doctrine of the person of Christ, which belonged
more particularly to the apostles who had lived with Him, nor
the delineation of the last things, which was the common pro-
perty of the apostolate. His special lot was the way of gaining
possession of the Christian salvation. Now Paul wished to
give to the church only that which he had himself received
" through the teaching of Christ, without the intervention of
any man" (GaL i. 11, 12). And this is what has naturally
determined the contents of the Epistle to the Eomans. The
limit of his divinely received gospel was that of this Epistle.
This certainly did not prevent its contents from touching at
all points the general teaching of the apostles, which included
Paul's, as a wider circumference encloses a narrower. One
sees this in the christological and eschatological elements

GODET a EOM. I.

98 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. Ill

contained in the Epistle to the Romans, and which harmonize
with the general apostolic teaching. But it is not from this
source that the substance of our Epistle is derived. The
apostle wishes to give to the Romans his gospel, and, if I may
so speak, his Paul.

From this point of view we can also account for the
elements of anti-Jewish polemic which have misled so many
excellent critics. Mangold and Weizsacker for example, as to
the aim of his letter. Paul wished to expound the mode
of individual salvation ; but could he do so without taking
account of the ancient revelation which seemed to teach a
different way from that which he was himself expounding ?
Could he at this moment of transition, when the one of two
covenants was taking the place of the other, say : ly faith,
without adding : and not hy the law ? The anti-legal tendency
belonged inherently to his teaching, as much as the anti-papal
tendency belonged to Luther's. Would a Reformer have been
able, even without intending to write polemically, to compose
a system of dogmatics without setting aside the merit of
works ? The aim of Paul's treatise was didactic and world-
wide; the introduction proves this (the description of the
corruption of the Gentile world) ; the middle confirms it (the
parallel between Adam and Jesus Christ) ; the close completes
the demonstration (the systematic exposition of morals, with-
out any allusion to the law). But beside this way of salva-
tion, which he was anxious to expound, he saw another which
attempted to rival it, and which professed also to be divinely
revealed. He could not establish the former without setting
aside the latter. The anti-Judaizing pieces do not therefore
oblige us to ascribe this tendency to the whole letter. They
have their necessary place in the development of the subject
of the Epistle.

It need hardly be said that our explanation does not exclude
what truth there is in the other proposed solutions. That
Paul desired by this system of instruction to secure a favour-
able reception at Rome ; that he hoped to strengthen this
church against the invasion of Judaizers, present or to come ;
that he had it before him to gather into his letter the whole
array of biblical and logical arguments which a hot conflict
and incessant meditation had led him to collect during the

CHAP. III.] THE EPISTLE. 99

years which were just closing ; that this treatise was like a
trophy raised on the field of battle, w^here he had gained such
signal triumphs, since the opening of hostilities at Antioch to
his complete victory at Corinth ; and that, finally, no part of
the world appeared to him more suitable for receiving this
monument erected by him than the church of the Capital of
the world, — of all this I make no doubt. But it seems to me
that those various and particular aims find their full truth only
when they are grouped round this principal one : to found
afterhand, and, if one may so speak, morally to refound the
church of Eome.

To set free the kingdom of God from the Jewish wrapping
which had served as its cradle, such was the work of St. Paul.
This task he carried out by his life in the domain of action,
and by the Epistle to the Eomans in the domain of thought.
This letter is, as it were, the theory of his missionary preach-
ing, and of his spiritual life, which is one with his work.

Does the course of the Epistle really correspond to the aim
which we have now indicated ? Has it the systematic cha-
racter which we should be led to expect from a strictly didactic
purpose i

L

CHAPTER IV.

ARRANGEMENT AND PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.

IKE St. Paul's other letters, the Epistle to the Romans
begins with a preface (i. 1—15), which includes the
address and a thanksgiving, and which is intended to form
the relation between the author and his readers. But in this
letter the address is more elaborate than usual This differ-
ence arises from the fact that the apostle did not yet know
personally the church to which he was writing. Hence it is
that he has strongly emphasized his mission to be the Apostle
of the Gentiles ; for on this rests the official bond which justifies
the step he is taking (vv. 1—7). The thanksgiving which
follows, and which is founded on the work already accom-
plished among them, leads him quite naturally to apologise
for not yet having taken part in it himself, and to express the
constant desire which he feels of being able soon to exercise
his apostleship among them, as well for the confirmation of
their faith and his own encouragement, as for the increase of
their church (vv. 8-15).

After this preface of an epistolary character, there begins,
as in the other letters, the treatment of the subject, the hody oj
the writing. But here again the Epistle to the Romans differs
from all the rest, in having the central part detached from
the two epistolary pieces, the introduction and the conclusion,
much more sharply. The Epistle to the Romans is thus,
properly speaking, neither a treatise nor a letter ; it is a
treatise contained in a letter.

The treatise begins with ver. 16, the first words of which
form the skilfully-managed transition from the introduction
to the treatment. The latter extends to xv. 13, where the
return to the epistolary form indicates the beginning of the
conclusion.

3ITAr. IT.] AERANGEMENT AND PLAN OF THE EPISTLE. 101

I. 16, 17.

Before entering on the development of his subject, the
apostle expounds it in a few lines, which are, as it were, the
theme of the entire treatise. This summary is contained in
vv. 16, 17. The apostle proposes to show that the salvation
of every man, whoever he may be, rests on the righteousness
which faith procures ; he supports this proposition immediately
by a scripture declaration.

With ver. 18 the development of the subject begins; it is dis-
tributed under two heads, the one relating to principles, — this
is the doctrinal treatise ; the other containing the application, — •
this forms the moral treatise. The first proceeds from i. 18
to the end of chap. xi. ; the second from xii. 1 to xv. 1 3.

The doctrinal treatise is the positive and negative demonstra-
tion of the righteousness of faith. It comprehends three parts :
the one fundamental, from i. 18 to the end of chap. v. : the
other two supplementary (chap, vi.— viii. and ix.— xi.).

I. 18-V. 21.

In this first part Paul gives ihQ positive demonstration of justi-
fication by faith. He developes the three following thoughts: —

1. i. 18-iii. 20. The need which the world has of such a
righteousness. For the whole of it is under the wrath of
God ; this fact is obvious as to the Gentiles (chap, i.) ; it is
not less certain in regard to the Jews (ii.), and that in spite
of their theocratic advantages (iii. 1-8). The Holy Scriptures
come, over and above, to shut the mouth of all mankind
(vv. 9—20). Summary: Wrath is on all, even on the Jews.

2. iii. 21-v. 11. The free and universal ^^/if of the right-
eousness of faith given by God to men. This gift has been
made possible by the expiatory work of Jesus Christ (iii. 21—
26). It is offered to Gentiles as well as Jews, in accordance
with the principle of Jewish monotheism (vv. 27—31). This
mode of justification is, besides, in keeping with the decisive
example, that of Abraham (iv.). Finally, the believer is assured
that, whatever may be the tribulations of the present, this
righteousness of faith will never fail him. It has even been
provided by the faithful mediation of Jesus Christ, that it shall

102 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. IV

suffice in the day of final wrath (v. 1-11). Summary: the
righteousness of faith is for all, even for the Gentiles.

3. V. 12-21. This universal condemnation and this uni-
versal justification (which have formed the subject of the two
preceding sections) are both traced up to their historical points
of departure, Adam and Christ. These two central person-
alities extend their opposite influences, the one of condemna-
tion and death, the other of justification and life, over all
mankind, but in such a way that the saving action of the one
infinitely exceeds the destructive action of the other.

The righteousness of faith without the works of the law
is thus established. But a formidable objection arises : Will
it be able to found a rule of holiness comparable to that which
followed from the law, and without having recourse to the
latter ? After having excluded the law as a means of justifi-
cation, are we not obliged to return to it when the end in
view is to lay a foundation for the moral life of believers ?

The answer to this question is the subject of the first of the
two supplementary parts (vi.-viii.).

Chap. VI.-VIII.

This part, like the preceding, contains the development of
three principal ideas : —

1. VL 1— vii. 6. The relation to Christ on which justifica-
tion by faith rests, contains in it a principle of holiness. It
carries the believer into communion with that death to sin
and life to God which were so perfectly realized by Jesus
Christ (vi. 1-14). This new principle of sanctification asserts
its sway over the soul with such force, that the flesh is dis-
posed to regard this subjection to holiness as slavery (vv.
15-23). And the believer finds in this union with Christ,
and in virtue of the law itself, the right of breaking with the
law, that he may depend only on his new spouse (vii. 1—6).

2. vii. 7-25. This breaking with the law should occasion
us neither fear nor regret. For the law was as powerless to
sanctify man as it showed itself (see the first part) powerless
to justify him. By discovering to us our inward sin, the law
exasperates it, and slays us spiritually (vv. 7-13). Once it has
plunged us into this state of seoaration from God, it is power-

CHAP. IV.] ASRANGEMENT AND PLAN OF THE EPISTLE. 103

less to deliver iis from it. The efforts which we make to
shake off the yoke of sin serve only to make us feel more its
insupportable weight (vv. 14-25).

3. Chap. viii. But the Spirit of Christ is the liberating power.
It is He who realizes in us the holiness demanded by the law,
and who, by rescuing our bodies from the power of the flesh,
consecrates them by holiness for resurrection (vv. 1-11). It
is He who, by making us sons of God, makes us at the same
time heirs of the glory which is to be revealed (vv. 12—17).
For the sufferings of the present do not last always. The
universal renovation, which is prayed for by the threefold sigh
of creation, the children of God, and the Holy Spirit Himself,
draws near; and, notwithstanding the tribulations of the
present hour, this state of glory remains as the assured goal
of God's eternal plans in favour of His elect (vv. 18-30).

As at the end of the preceding part the apostle, in his
parallel between Adam and Christ, had cast a comprehensive
glance over the domain which he had traversed ; so, from the
culminating point which he has just reached, he embraces
once more in one view that entire salvation through the
righteousness of faith which is rendered for ever indestructible
by the sanctification of the Spirit ; and he strikes the trium-
phant note of the assurance of salvation (vv. 31—39).

But now that this first objection has been solved, there
rises another more formidable stiU : If salvation rests on the
righteousness of faith, what comes of the promises made to
the people of Israel, who have rejected this righteousness ?
What becomes of the divine election of which this people was
the object ? Is not the faithfulness of God destroyed ? The
second supplementary part (ix.-xi.) is intended to throw light
on this obscure problem.

Chap. IX.-XI.

St. Paul resolves this objection by three considerations, the
details of which we cannot reproduce here even approximately.

1. The freedom of God cannot be restricted by any limit
external to itself, nor in particular by any acquired right or
privilege (chap. ix.).

2. The use which God has made of His liberty in this case

104 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. IV.

has a perfectly good reason : Israel obstinately refused to
enter into His mind ; Israel determined to maintain its own
righteousness, and rejected the righteousness of faith, which it
should have possessed in common with the Gentiles (chap. x.).

3. The partial and merely temporary rejection of Israel
has had the most salutary consequences for the world, and
shall one day have the same for Israel itself. For the un-
belief of this people has opened wide the gate of salvation to
the Gentiles, and their salvation will be the means to that of
Israel ; so that these two halves of mankind, after having both
in their turn made the humiliating experience of disobedience,
shall be reunited in the bosom of eternal mercy (chap. xi.).

Thus God was free to reject His people ; in doing so He
used His ix^^^Qvo. justly ; and this exercise of it, limited in
all respects as it is, will be salutary, and will show forth
the wisdom of God. All the aspects of the question are
exhausted in this discussion, which may be called the master-
piece of the philosophy of history. In closing it, the apostle,
casting his look backwards a third time from this new cul-
minating point, and surveying the labyrinths of ways and
judgments by which God realizes His plans of love, breaks out
into a cry of adoration over this ocean of light (xi. 32-36).

Justification by faith, after having been positively estab-
lished, has come forth triumphant from the two trials to
which it has been subjected. The question was asked : Could
it produce holiness ? It has shown that it could, and that it
Was the law which, in this respect, was powerlessness itself.
The question was. Could it explain history ? It has proved
that it could. What remains to be done ? One thing only :
To show the new principle grappling with the realities of
existence, and to depict fhe life of the heliever who by faith
has obtained justification. Such is the subject of the second
of the two courses of instruction contained in the body of the
Epistle, that is to say, of the moral treatise,

XIL 1-XV. 13.

In the piece vi.-viii., St. Paul had laid the foundations of
Christian sane tifi cation. He describes it now as it is realized
in everyday life.

CITAP. IV.l AKEANGEMENT AND PLAN OF THE EPISTLE. 105

Two grave errors prevail in the estimate ordinarily formed
of this portion of the Epistle. Most people regard it as a
simple appendix, foreign to the real subject of the work.
But, on the contrary, it rests, not less than the doctrinal
exposition, on the theme formulated i. 17. For it completes
the development of the word shall live, begun in the part,
chap, vi.-viii. The other error which is fallen into not less
frequently, is to see in these chapters only a series of practical
exhortations, without any logical concatenation. But Calvin's
epithet on our Epistle : Mdliodica est, applies not less to the
practical than to the doctrinal instruction, as we shall imme-
diately see. The moral treatise embraces a general part
(xii. 1-xiii. 14) and a special part (xiv. 1-xv. 13).

XII. 1-XIII. 14

In this passage four principal ideas are expounded.

1. xii. 1, 2. The apostle lays down, as the basis and point
of departure for the redeemed life, the living sacrifice which
the believer, touched by the mercies of God, makes of his
body, in order to do His perfect will, which is revealed more
and more to his renewed understanding.

2. xii. 3-21. This gift of himself the believer accom-
plislies, in the first place, as a member of the church, the body
of Clirist, by humility and love.

3. xiii. 1-10. He carries it out, in the second place, as
a member of the state, the social body instituted by God ; and
he does so in the two forms of submission to the authorities,
Qxidi justice to all.

4. xiii. 11-14. What sustains and animates him in this
double task, as a Christian and a citizen, is the point of view
which he has unceasingly before him, Christ coming again,
and with Him the day of salvation breaking, — a dtiy which
shall be such only for those who are found clothed with Christ.

This moral teaching thus forms a complete whole. It sets
forth clearly, though briefly, the starting-point, the waij, and the
goal of the life of the redeemed.

To this general teaching the apostle adds a supplementary
part, which is a sort of example side by side with precept.
It is an application of tlie great duty of self-sacrifice, in the

106 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. IV.

forms of humility and love, to the existing circumstances of
the church of Eome (xiv. 1-xv. 13).

XIV. 1-XV. 13.

A divergence of views was manifested at Eome between
the majority, who were heartily spiritual and Pauline, and
the minority, who were timorous and Judaizing. Paul points
out to each party what its conduct should be according to the
law of love, of which Christ has left us the model (xiv. 1 -
XV. V) ; then, contemplating in spirit the sublime unity of the
church realized in this way of love, he once more sounds the
note of adoration (vv. 8-13).

This local application, while closing the practical treatise,
restores the author and his readers to the midst of the church
of Eome ; it thus forms the transition to the e]pistolary conclu-
sion, which corresponds to the introduction (i. 1-15). From
ver. 14, indeed, the style again becomes that of a letter.

XV. 14-XVI. 25.

This conclusion treats of five subjects.

1. XV. 14-33. After having anew justified the very con-
siderable didactic work which he had written them by the
commission which he has received for the Gentiles, the apostle
reminds the Eomans that his apostolic work is now finished
in the East. He hopes, therefore, soon to arrive at Eome, on
his way to Spain. This piece corresponds exactly to the
passage, i. 8-15, of the preface.

2. xvi. 1-16. He recommends to his readers the bearer of
his letter, and charges them with greetings for all the members
of the church known to him. To these personal salutations
he adds, for the whole church, those with which he has been
charged by the numerous churches which he has recently passed
through.

3. Vv. 17—20. He invites them in passing, and in a sort
of postscript, to be on their guard against the Judaizing
emissaries, who will be sure to make their appearance as soon
as they hear of a work of the Lord at Eome.

4. Vv. 21-24. He transmits the greetings of those who

CHAP. IV. j ARRANGEMENT AND PLAN OF THE EPISTLE. 107

surround him, and even lets his secretary Tertius have the
word, if one may so speak, to greet them in his own person.

5. Vv. 25-27. He closes with a prayer, which corresponds
to the desire with which he had opened his letter, when he
said, ill, how much he longed to be able to labour for their
strengthening. He did what he could with this view by send-
ing them such a letter. But he knows well that his work
will not produce its fruit except in so far as God Himself
will do His part in working by it : " Now to Him that is of
power to stablish you according to my gospel" . . .

PLAN OF THE EPISTLE.

EPISTOLARY INTRODUCTION (I. 1-15).
THE BODY OF THE WORK (I. 16-XV. 13).

Summary: i. 16, 17.

I. The Doctrinal Treatise (i. 18-xi. 36).

Salvation by the righteousness of faith.

Fundamental Part: i. 18-v. 21.

The righteousness of faith without the works of the
law.
First Supplementary Part : vi.-viii.

Sanctifkation without tJie law.
Second Supplementary Part : ix.-xi.

The rejection of Israel.

II. The Practical Treatise (xii. 1-xv. 13).

The life of the justified believer.

General Part: xii. 1-xiii. 14.

Exposition of Christian holiness.
Special Part: xiv. 1-xv. 13.

Divergences among Christians.

EPISTOLARY CONCLUSION (XV. 14-XVI. 27).

Such is the plan or scheme which the apostle seems to me
to have had steadily before him in dictating this letter.

If such is the method of the work, it could not correspond
better to the object which, on our supposition, its author had
in view.

CHAPTEE V.

PKESERVATION OF THE TEXT.

CAN we flatter ourselves that we have the text of oui
Epistle as it proceeded from the apostle's hands ?

1. A preliminary question has been raised on this head : Is
not our Greek text the translation of a Latin original ? This
view is given forth so early as by a Syrian scholiast on the
margin of a manuscript of the Peschito (Syrian translation),
and it has been received by some Catholic theologians. But
this is a mere inference, founded on the erroneous idea that in
writing to Eomans it was necessary to use the Latin language.
The literary language at Kome was Greek. This is established
by the numerous Greek inscriptions in the catacombs, by the
use of the Greek language in the letter of Ignatius to the
church of Eome, in the writings of Justin Martyr composed
at Eome, and in those of Irenseus composed in Gaul. The
Christians of Eome knew the Old Testament (Eom. vii. 1);
now they could not have acquired this knowledge except
through the Greek version of the LXX. Besides, it shows
the utter want of philological discernment to call in question
the original character of the Greek of our Epistle, and to
suppose that such a style is that of a translation.

2. A second question is this : Have there not been intro-
duced into the text of our Epistle passages which are foreign
to the work, or even composed by another hand than Paul's ?
No doubt the exposition which we have just given of the
method of the woric seems to exclude such a suspicion by
showing the intimate connection of all its parts, and the
perfectly organic character of the entire letter. Nevertheless,
doubts have been raised from the earliest times in regard to
some passages of the last parts of the Epistle; and these
suspicions have been so aggravated in the most recent times.

CILVP. v.] PKESKRVATION OF THE TEXT. 109

that from chap, xii., where the moral part begins, all at the
present day is matter of dispute.

It is often alleged that Marcion, about 140, in the edition
of ten of Paul's Epistles, which he published for the use of his
churches, rejected from the Epistle to the Eomans the whole
conclusion (our chaps, xv. and xvi.). Origen says of him as
follows {ad xvi. 24): "Marcion entirely rejected (penitus
abstulit) this piece ; and not only that, but he also lacerated
(dissecuit) the whole passage from the words : Whatsoever is
not of faith is sin (xiv. 23), to the end." But was not F.
Nitzsch justified^ in bringing out the difference between the
words lacerate {dissecuit) and wholly reject {penitus abstulit) ?
It is quite possible, therefore, that Marcion only rejected the
doxology which closes the Epistle, xvi. 25-27, and that in xv.
and xvi. he had only made some excisions to accommodate
them to his system. Such was his course in regard to the
biblical books which he used. An expression of Tertullian's
has also been advanced {adv. Marcion, v. 14), which speaks of
the passage, xiv. 10, as belonging to the clausula (the con-
clusion of the Epistle). But it is not to be supposed that
Tertullian himself agreed with his adversary in rejecting the
last two chapters, and xiv. is so near the end of the Epistle
that nothing whatever can be proved from this phrase.^ What
appears certain is — (1) that Marcion rejected the final doxology,
xvL 25—27, for it seemed in contradiction to his system from
the way in which it mentions the prophetical writings; (2)
that he cut and carved freely on the same principle in chaps.
XV. and xvi

Yet the many conclusions which are found at the close of
our Epistle, — no less than five are reckoned (xv. 13, 33, xvi.
16, 20, 24-27), — the textual displacements in the manu-
scripts, the greetings so difficult to explain, have awakened the
doubts of criticism, and till now have not been satisfactorily
settled.

Semler, at the end of the last century, supposed that the
Epistle closed at xiv. 23, which explains, he thinks, why the
final doxology, xvi. 25-27, is found here in several manuscripts.

' Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. 1860. Comp. also the excellent work of E,
Lacheret, Revue tlUologiquc, Juillet 1878, p. QQ.
* See another solution in Meyer, Intr. to chap. xv.

110 INTliODQCTION. [CHAP. V.

The passage containing the salutations, xvi. 3-16, he holds to
have been a special leaf committed to the bearers of the letter, to
indicate the persons whom they were to greet in the different
churches through which their journey led them. Hence the
phrase : " Salute K K" . . . And what more was contained in
those two chapters was addressed to the persons saluted, and was
intended to be transmitted to them with a copy of the letter.

Paulus saw in chaps, xv. and xvi. a supplement intended
solely for the leaders and the most enlightened of the members
of the Eoman church.

Eichhorn and a great number of theologians in his train
have held that the whole of chap, xvi., or at least the passage
xvi. 1-20 or 3-20 (Eeuss, Ewald, Mangold, Laurent), could
not have been addressed to Rome by the apostle. It is
impossible to explain these numerous greetings in a letter to
a church where he never lived. Thus we have here a frag-
ment which has strayed from an Epistle addressed to some
other church, either Corinth (Eichhorn) or Ephesus. But
there remained a difficulty : How had this strange leaf been
introduced from Asia or Greece into the copies of a letter
addressed to the church of Eome ?

Baur boldly cut the knot. Founding on the alleged ex-
ample of Marcion, he declared xv. and xvi. wholly unauthentic.
" They present," he said, " several ideas or phrases incompatible
with the apostle's anti-Judaistic standpoint." One cannot help
asking, however, how the Epistle to the Romans could have
closed with the passage xiv. 23. A conclusion corresponding
to the preface is absolutely indispensable.

Schenkel {Bihellexikon, t. v.) thinks he finds this conclusion
in the doxology, xvi. 25-27, which he transposes (with some
documents) to the end of xiv., and the authenticity of which
he defends. Chap. xv. is, according to him, a letter oi recom-
mendation given to Phoebe for the churches through which
she was to pass on her way from Corinth to Ephesus, and from
Ephesus to Rome.

Scholten holds as authentic only the recommendation of
Phoebe (xvi. 1, 2) and the greetings of Paul's companions, with
the prayer of the apostle himself (vv. 21-24).

Lucht ^ adheres to Baur's view, while modifying it a little.
* Ueher die heidtn letzten Cavitel des Bo&merhr. 1871.

CHAP, v.] PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT. Ill

The Epistle could not close with xiv. 23. Our chaps, xv. and
xvi. must therefore contain something authentic. The true
conclusion was so severe on the ascetic minority combated in
xiv., that the presbyters judged it prudent to suppress it ; but
it remained in the archives, where it was found by a later
editor, who amalgamated it by mistake with a short letter to
the Ephesians, thus forming the two last chapters.

Of this theory of Lucht, Hilgenfeld accepts only the un-
authentic character of the doxology, xvi. 25—2*7. For his
part, with the exception of this passage, he admits the entire
authenticity of xv. and xvi.

M. Eenan has given forth an ingenious hypothesis, which
revives an idea of Grotius (p. 93). Starting from the
numerous conclusions which these two chapters seemingly
contain, he supposes that the apostle composed this Epistle
from the first with a view to several churches, four at least.
The common matter, intended for all, fills the first eleven
chapters. Then come the different conclusions, intended for
each of the four churches. For the first, the church of Eome,
chap. XV. ; for the second, that of Ephesus, xii.-xiv., and the
passage, xvi. 1-20 ; for the third, that of Thessalonica, xii.-xiv.,
and the greeting, xvi. 21-24; and for the fourth, unknown,
xii.-xiv., with the doxology, xvi. 25-27. Thus, indeed, all is
Paul's ; and the incoherence of the two last chapters arises
only from the amalgamation of the various conclusions.*

Volkmar presents a hypothesis which differs little from that
of Scholten. The Epistle properly so called (composed of a
didactic and hortatory part) closed at xiv. 23. Here came
the conclusion which must be discovered among the un-
authentic conglomerates of xv. and xvi. And Volkmar's
sagacity is at no loss. The three verses, xv. 33-xvi. 2, and the
four verses, xvi. 21-24, were the real conclusion of the Epistle.
All the rest was added, about 120, when the exhortation of
xiv. was carried forward by that of xv. 1-32, and when the
passage xvi. 3-16 was added. Later still, between 150 and
160, there was added the warning against heresy, xvi. 17-20.

Finally, Schultz has just proposed a very complicated
hypothesis.^ He ably maintains that all the particular pas-

* Saint Paul, pp. 63-74.

* Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1877.

112 INTRODUCTION, [CHAP. V.

sages are composed by the apostle, starting in his argument
from xvi. 17-20, passing therefrom to vv. 3-16, to vv. 21-24,
to vv. 1, 2, and, finally, to xv. 14-33. But it is to demon-
strate immediately afterwards that xvi. 17-20 can only have
been addressed to a church instructed and founded by Paul,
which was not the case with that of Eome. Hence he
passes to the numerous salutations of chap, xvi., which can
only have been addressed to a church known by the apostle,
probably Ephesus. Thus there existed a letter of Paul to the
Ephesians which closed with these many greetings (xvi. 8—20)
But they could not be more tlian the conclusion of a fuller
letter. Where was this letter ? In chap, xii., xiii., xiv., xv,
1-6, and in the conclusion, xvi. 3—20, of our Epistle. This
letter was written from Eome by the apostle during his
captivity. A copy, left in the archives of the church, was
joined, after the persecution of JSTero, with our Epistle to the
Eomans. Hence the form of our present text. The pro-
bability attaching to this hypothesis at the first glance is so
slight, that we can hardly suppose its author to have pro-
pounded it with much assurance.

Let us sum up our account. Opinions on chaps, xv. and
xvi. fall into four classes : — 1. All is Paul's, and all in its right
place (Tholuck, Meyer, Hofmann, etc.). 2. All is Paul's, but
with a mixture of elements belonging to other letters (Semler,
Eichhorn, Eeuss, Eenan, Schultz). 3. Some passages are
Paul's, the rest is interpolated (Schenkel, Scholten, Lucht,
Volkmar). 4. All is unauthentic (Baur).

We shall have to examine all those opinions, and weigh the
facts which have given rise to them (see on xv. and xvi.).
Meanwhile, we may be allowed to refer to the account we
have given of the general course of the Epistle, and to ask if
the entire work does not produce the effect of a living and
healthful organism, in which all the parts hold to and dovetail
into one another, and from which no member can possibly be
detached without arbitrary violence.

3. The reader of a commentary is entitled to know the
origin of the text which is about to be explained to him.

The text from which our oldest editions and our \crsions
in modern tongues have been made (since the Eeformation) is
that which has been preserved, with very little divergency, in

CHAP. \.] PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT. 113

the 250 copies of Paul's Epistles in cursive or minuscular
writing, later consequently than the tenth century, which are
found scattered among the different libraries of Europe. It was
from one of these manuscripts, found at Basle, that Erasmus
published the first edition of the Greek text ; and it is his
edition which has formed for centuries the groundwork of subse-
quent editions. It is obvious that the origin of what has so
long borne the name of the Received text is purely accidental.

The real state of things is this. Three classes of documents
furnish us with the text of our Epistle : the ancient manu-
scripts, the ancient versions, and the quotations which we find
in the works of ecclesiastical writers.

1. Manuscripts. — These are of two kinds : those written in
majuscular letters, and which are anterior to the tenth century ;
and those which have the cursive and minuscular writing,
used since that date.

The majuscules in which Paul's Epistles have been pre-
served are eleven in number : —

Two of the fourth century : the Sinaiticus ( K ) and the
Vaticanus (B) ;

Two of the fifth century : the Alexandrinus (A) and the
Cod. of Ephrem (C) ;

One of the sixth century : the Claromontanus (D) ;

Three of the ninth century : the Sangermanensis (E), a simple
copy of the preceding ; the Augiensis (F) ; the Boernerianus (G) ;

Three of the ninth to the tenth century : the Mosqiiensis
(K), the Angelicus (L), and the Porfirianus (P).

We do not mention a number of fragments in majuscular
writing. We have already spoken of the documents in
minuscular characters. As soon as men began to study these
documents a little more attentively, they found three pretty
well marked sets of texts, which appear also, though less
prominently, in the Gospels : 1. The Alexandrine set, repre-
sented by the four oldest majuscules (fc? A B C), and so called
because this text was probably the form used in the churches
of Egypt and Alexandria ; 2. The Greco-Latin set, represented
by the four manuscripts which follow in order of date
(D E F G), so designated becjiuse it was the text circulating
in the churches of the West, and because in the manuscripts
which have preserved it it is accompanied with a Latin

GODET. H EOM. I.

114 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. V.

translation ; and, 3. The Byzantine set, to which belong the
three most recent majuscules (K L P), and almost the whole
of the minuscules ; so named because it was the text which
had fixed and, so to speak, stereotyped itself in the churches
of the Greek empire.

In case of variation these three sets are either found, each
having its own separate reading, or combining two against one ;
sometimes even the ordinary representatives of one differ from
one another and unite with those, or some of those, of another
set. And it is not easy to decide to which of those forms of
the text the preference should be given.

Moreover, as the oldest majuscules go back no farther than
the fourth century, there remains an interval of 300 years
between them and the apostolic autograph. And the question
arises whether, during this long interval, the text did not
undergo alterations more or less important. Fortunately, in
the two other classes of documents we have the means of filling
up this considerable blank.

2. The Versions. — There are two translations of the New
Testament which go back to the end of the second century,
and by which we ascertain the state of the text at a period
much nearer to that when the autographs were still extant.
These are the ancient Latin version known as the Itala, of
which the Vulgate or version received in the Catholic Church
is a revision, and the Syriac version, called Feschito. Not
only do these two ancient documents agree as to the substance
of the text, but their general agreement with the text of our
Greek manuscripts proves on the whole the purity of the
latter. Of these two versions, the Itala represents rather the
Greco-Latin type, the Peschito the Byzantine type. A third
and somewhat more recent version, the Cojptic (Egyptian),
exactly reproduces the Alexandrine form.

But we are in a position to go back even further, and to
bridge over a good part of tho interval which still divides us
from the apostolic text. The means at our command are —

3. The quotations from the New Testament in the writers
of the second century. — In 185, Irenaeus frequently quotes the
New Testament in his great work. In particular, he reproduces
numerous passages from our Epistle Cabout eighty-four verses).
—About X 50, Justin reproduces textually a long passage from

CHAP, v.] PEESEEVATION OF THE TEXT. Il5

the Epistle to the Eomans (iii. 11-17). — About 140, Marcion
published his edition of Paul's Epistles. TertulKan, in his
work against this heretic, has reproduced a host of passages
from Marcion's text, and especially from that of the Epistle to
the Eomans. He obviously quoted them as he read them in
Marcion's edition.^ In this continuous series of quotations
(L. V. cc. 13 and 14), embracing about thirty-eight verses, we
have the oldest known evidence to a considerable part of the
text of our Epistle. TertuUian himself (190-210) has in his
works more than a hundred quotations from this letter.

One writer carries us back, at least for a few verses, to the
very age of the apostle. I mean Clement of Eome, who, about
the year 96, addresses an Epistle to the Corinthians in which he
reproduces textually (c. 35) the entire passage, Eom. i 28-32.
The general integrity of our text is thus firmly established.

As to variations, I do not think it possible to give an a
priori preference to any of the three texts mentioned above
And in supporting the Alexandrine text as a rule, Tischendorf,
I fear, has made one of his great mistakes. When publishing
his seventh edition he liad to a certain extent recognised the
error of this method, which had gradually become prevalent
since the time of Griesbach. But the discovery of the
SinaUicus threw him into it again more than ever. This
fascination exercised by the old Alexandrine documents arises
from several causes : their antiquity, the real superiority of
their text in a multitude of cases, and, above all, the reaction
against the groundless supremacy of the Byzantine text in th^
old Textus receptus.

Any one who has had long experience in the exegesis of
the New Testament will, I think, own three things : — 1. That
all preference given a priori to any one of the three texts is
a prejudice ; 2. That the sole external reason, having some
probability in favour of a particular reading, is the agreement
of a certain number of documents of opposite types ; 3. That
the only means of reaching a well-founded decision, is the pro-
found study of the context.

In conclusion, it must be said the variations are as insigni-

* He says himself: "Whatever the omissions which Marcion has contrived
to make even in this, the most considerable of the Epistles, suppressing what he
liked, the things which he has left are enough for me."— Adv. Marc. v. 13.

116 INTRODUCTION. [CHAP. V.

ficant as they are numerous. I know only one in the Epistle
to the Komans — a work so eminently dogmatic — which could
exercise any influence on Christian doctrine, that of viii. 11.
And the point to which it refers (to wit, whether the body is
raised hy or on account of the Spirit who dwells in us) is a
subject which probably no pastor ever treated, either in his
catechetical instruction or in his preaching.

PRINCIPAL COMMENTATORS.

Ancient church : Origen (third century), in Latin translation.
Chrysostom (fourth century), thirty-two homilies. Theodoret
(fifth century). Ambrosiaster, probably the Eoman deacon
Hilary (third or fourth century). QEcumenius (tenth century).
Theophylact, bishop of Bulgaria (eleventh century). Erasmus
(sixteenth century), Annotationes in N. T.

After the Beformation : Calvin and Theodore Beza. Luther
(his celebrated Freface), Melajichthon, Annotationes (1522)
and Commentarii (1532). Bucer, Enarrationes (1536).
Grotius, Annotationes (1645). Calov, Bihlia illustrata (1672).
Bengel, Gnomon (1742).

Modern times: Tholuck (1824, 5th ed. 1856). Eiickert
(1831, 2d ed. 1839). Stuart, American theologian (1832).
Olshausen (1835). De Wette (1835, 4th ed. 1847). Hodge,
of Princeton (1835, published in French 1840). Fritzsche
(1836). Meyer (1836, 5th ed. 1872). Oltramare, chaps.
i.-v. 11 (1843). Philippi (1848). Nielsen, Dane (1856).
Umbreit (1856). Ewald, die Sendschreiben des apostels Paulus
(1857). Theod. Schott (1858). Lange and Fay in the
Bihelwerh (1865, 3d ed. 1868). Hofmann (1868). Ph.
Schaff, work published in English after Lange's Commentary
(1873). Volkmar (1875). Bonnet, le Nouveau Testament ^
2d ed. Epitres de Paul (1875). Eeuss, La Bible, Epitres
pauliniennes (1878).
. Here we mention in addition three remarkable monographs,
two of them on the passage, v. 12-21. Kothe, Neiier Ver-
such einer Ausl. der paid. Stelle, v. 11-21 (1836), and Dietzsch,
Adam und Christus (1871). The third is the work of
Morison, of Glasgow, Critical Exposition of the Third Chapter
of PauVs Epistle to the Bomans (1866).

CHAP, v.] PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT. 117

The ancient Commentaries are well known ; to attempt to
characterize them would be superfluous. I shall say a word
on th€ most important of the moderns. Tholuck was the first,
after the blighting epoch of rationalism, who reopened to the
church the living fountains of evangelical truth which spring
up in our Epistle. Olshaicsen, continuing his friend's work,
expounded still more copiously the treasures of salvation by
faith, which had been brought to light again by Tholuck. De
Wette has traced the links of the apostle's reasoning with
admirable sagacity. Meyer has brought to the study of our
Epistle all the resources of that learned and vigorous philology,
the application of which Fritzsche had demanded in the study
9f our sacred books ; to these he has added a sound exegetical
sense and an understanding of Christian truth which makes
his work tJie indispensable Commentary. Oltramare has a great
wealth of exegetical materials; but he has not elaborated
them sufficiently before composing his book. Ewald, a para-
phrase in which the original spirit of the author lives again.
Theod. Schott ; his whole work turns on a preconceived and
unfortunately false point of view. Lange ; every one knows
his characteristics, at once brilliant and arbitrary. Hofmann
brings a mind of the most penetrating order to the analysis
of the apostle's thought, he does not overlook the slightest
detail of the text; his stores of philological knowledge are
not inferior to those of Meyer. But he too often lacks
accuracy ; he dwells complacently on exegetical discoveries
in which it is hard to think that he himself believes, and to
appreciate the intrinsic clearness of the style requires a fourth
or fifth reading. Schaff happily remedies Lange's defects, and
completes him in an original way. Volkmar's treatise is an
analysis rather than an interpretation. The best part of it
consists of criticism of the text, and of a beautiful reprint of
the Vatican text. Bonnet, on the basis of very thoroughgoing
exegetical studies, has, with considerable self-denial, composed
a simple Commentary for the use of laymen.^ Eeuss explains
the essential idea of each passage, but his plan does not admit
of a detailed exegesis. Morison's monograph, as it seems to

^ We call the attention of non-theological readers to the interesting and
thoroughgoing work of M. Walther : Paraphrase de I'dpUre atix Eomains
(1871).

118 INTKODUCTION. [CHAP. V.

me, is a unique specimen of learning and sound exegetical
judgment.

TITLE OF THE EPISTLE.

The authentic title is certainly that which has been pre-
served in its simplest form in the seven oldest Mjj., the four
Alex., and the three Greco - Latin : ITpo? 'Pcofiaiovi, to the
Bomans. In later documents there is a gradual increase of
epithets, till we have the title of L : Tov djLov koX 7ravev<j)rjfiov
airoaTokov TLavkov einaTdkrj irpo^ ' PcDfiacov^; (Upistle of the
holy and everywhere blessed Apposite Faul to the liotnans).

COMMENTARY.

THE framework of the Epistle to the Romans is, as we
have seen, the same as that of the most of Paul's other
Epistles : 1. An epistolary preface ; 2. The body of the letter ;
3. An epistolary conclusion.

PREFACE.
1.1-15.

This introduction is intended to establish a relation between
the apostle and his readers which does not yet exist, inas-
much as he did not found the church, and had not yet visited
it. It embraces: 1. The address; 2. A thanksgiving for the
work of the Lord at Kome.

FIKST PASSAGE (I. 1-7).

The Address,

The form of address usual among the ancients contained three
terms : " N. to N. greeting^ Comp. Acts xxiii. 26 : " Claudius
Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix greeting."
Such is the type we have here, but modified in execution to
suit the particular intention of the apostle. The subject, Paul^
is developed in the first six verses; the regimen, to the
Christians in Borne, in the first half of ver. 7, and the object,
greeting, in the second.

One is surprised at the altogether extraordinary extension
bestowed on the development of the first term. It is very
much the same in the Epistle to the Galatians. The fact i.«

119

120 PREFACE.

accounted for in the latter writing by the need which Paul
felt to give the lie at once to the calumnies of his Judaizing
adversaries, who denied his divine call to the apostleship.
His object in our Epistle is wholly different. His concern
is to justify the exceptional step he is taking at the moment,
in addressing a letter of instruction like that which follows,
to a church on which he seemed to have no claim.

In these six verses, 1-6, Paul introduces himself; first, as
an apostle in the general sense of the w^ord, as called directly
by God to the task of publishing the message of salvation, w.
1, 2 ; then he indulges in an apparent digression regarding
the object of his message, the person of Jesus Christ, who had
appeared as the Messiah of Israel, but was raised by His
resurrection to the state of the Son of God, vv. 3, 4 ; finally,
from the person of the Lord he returns to the apostleship,
which he has received from this glorified Lord, and which he
describes as a special apostleship to the Gentile world, vv.
5,6.

Vv. 1, 2. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,^ an apostle hy
[His] call, separated unto the gospel of God, which He had
promised afore hy His prophets in the Holy Scriptures." — Paul
introduces himself in this ver. 1 with the utmost solemnity ;
he puts his whole letter under the authority of his apostleship,
and the latter under that of God Himself. On the name Paul,
see Introd. p. 26. After having thus presented his personality,
he effaces it, as it were, immediately by the modest title of
Bovko^, servant. We need not translate this term by the word
slave, which in our modern languages suggests a more painful
idea than the Greek term. The latter contains the two ideas
of property and of oUigatory service. It may consequently be
applied to the relation which every Christian hears to the Lord
(1 Cor. vii. 22). If we take it here in this sense, the name
would imply the bond of equality in the faith which unites
Paul to his brethren at Eome. Yet as this letter is not a
simple fraternal communication, but an apostolic message
of the highest importance, it is more natural to take the word
servant in a graver sense, the same as it certainly has in, the
address of the Epistle to the Philippians i. 1: "Paul and

* B, Vulg. Aug. read Xpitrov inrtu instead of ln<reu XpiaTou, which the other
iocumeuts read.

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 121

Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all tlie saints in Christ
Jesus whicli are at Philippi." The term servant, thus contrasted
with the term saints, evidently denotes a special ministry.
In point of fact, there are men who are called to exemplify
the general submission which all believers owe to the Lord,
in the form of a particular office; they are sewants in the
limited sense of the word. The Eeceived reading : of Jesus
Christ, sets first in relief the historical person (Jesus), then
His office of Messiah (Christ). This form was the one which
corresponded best to the feeling of those who had first known
Jesus personally, and afterwards discovered Him to be the
Messiah. And so it is the usual and almost technical phrase
which prevailed in apostolic language. But the Vat. and the
Vulg. read : Xpiarov 'Irjaov, of Christ Jesus ; first the office,
then the person. This form seems preferable here as the less
usual. It corresponded to the personal development of Paul,
who had beheld the glorified Messiah before knowing that
He was Jesus. The title servant was very general, embracing
all the ministries established by Christ; the title apostle
denotes the special ministry conferred on Paul It is the
most elevated of all. While Christ's other servants build up
the church, either by extending it (evangelists) or perfecting
it (pastors and teachers), the apostles, with the prophets
(Christian prophets), have the task of founding it ; comp. Eph.
iv. 12. Paul was made a partaker of this supreme charge.
And he was so, he adds, by way of call. The relation between
the two words called and apostle is not that which would be
indicated by the paraphrase : " Called to be an apostle." This
meaning would rather have been expressed by the participle
(Kkrj&els!). In ver. 7, the corresponding phrase : called saints,
has quite another meaning from : called to he saints (which
would assume that they are not so). The meaning is : saints
by way of call, which implies that they are so in reality.
Similarly, Paul means that he is an apostle, and that he is so
in virtue of the divine vocation which alone confers such an
office. There is here no polemic against the Judaizers ; it is
the simple affirmation of that supreme dignity which authorizes
him to address the church as he is now doing ; comp. Eph.
i. 1 ; Col. i. 1. These two ideas, apostle and call, naturally
carry our minds back to the time of his conversion. But

122 PREFACE.

Paul knows that his consecration to this ministry goes farther
back still ; and this is the view which is expressed in the,
following phrase : a(j)Q)pi<TfjL6vo<;, set apart. This word, in such
a context, cannot apply to any human consecration, sucli as
that which he received along with Barnabas at Antioch, with
a view to their first mission, though the same Greek term is
used, Acts xiii. 2. Neither does it express the notion of an
eternal election, which would have been denoted by the com-
pound irpocoptafjuevo^, "destined heforelmnd!' as in the other
cases where a decree anterior to time is meant. The expres-
sion seems to me to be explained by the sentence, Gal. i. 15,
which is closely rehited to this : " But when it pleased God,
who had separated me (ac^opicra? /xe) from my mother's womb,
and called me {KaXeaa^ fie) by His grace." In this passage
of the Galatians he comes down from the selection to the call,
while here he ascends from the call to the selection. Let the
reader recall what we have said, Introd. pp. 5 and 6, as to the
providential character of all the previous circumstances oi
Saul's life. The apostle might well recognise in that whole
chain the signs of an original destination to the task with
which he saw himself invested. This task is expressed in the
words : icnto the gospel of God, eh evayyeXiov Oeov. If by the
word gospel we understand, as is usually done, the contents of
the divine message, then we must place the notion of preaching
in the preposition et?, in order to, and paraphrase it thus : " in
order to proclaim the gospel." This meaning of the word
gospel is hardly in keeping with the Living character of
primitive Christian language. The word rather denotes in
the New Testament the act of gospel preaching; so a few
lines below, ver. 9, and particularly 1 Thess. i. 5, where Paul
says : " Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also
in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance ; as
ye know what manner of men we were among you." These
words have no sense unless by our gospel, Paul means, our
preaching of the gospel. In this case the preposition for pre-
serves its simple meaning. The absence of the article before the
words gospel and God, give to the words a sort of descriptive
sense : a message of divine origin. The genitive Qeov, of God,
here denotes the author of the message, not its suhject ; for the
subject is Christy as is mentioned afterwards. Paul thus bcjars

CHAP. I. 1, 2. 123

within him the unspeakably elevated conviction of having
been set apart, from the beginning of his existence, to be the
herald of a message of grace (ev dyyeXKeip, to announce good
news) from God to mankind. And it is as the bearer of
this message that he addresses the church of Rome. If the
apostle does not add to his name that of any fellow-labourer,
as he does elsewhere, it is because he is doing this act in his
official character as the apostle of the Gentiles, a dignity
which he shares with no other. So it is Eph. i. 1 (in similar
circumstances).

But this preaching of salvation by the apostles has not
dropped suddenly from heaven. It has been prepared or
announced long before ; this fact is the proof of its decisive
importance in the history of humanity. This is what is
expressed in ver. 2. . ^ /

Several commentators think that the words : which He had
'prorivised afore, had no meaning, unless the word gospel, ver. 1,
be taken as referring to salvation itself, not as we have taken
it. to the act of preaching. But why could not Paul say that
the act of evangelical preaching had been announced before-
hand ? "Who hath, believed our preachiing V exclaims Isaiah
(liii. 1), "and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ?" And
lii. 7: "How beautiful are the feet of him who bringeth good
tidings, and who publisheth peace !" Finally, xl. 1, 2 : "Comfort
ye my people, your God wiU say . . . Cry unto Jerusalem, that
her set time is accomplished." The apostle himself quotes
these passages, x. 15, 16. The preaching of the gospel to
Jews and Gentiles appears to him a solemn act marking
a new era, the hour of universal salvation long expected ; so
he characterizes it also, Acts xvii. 30 ; Eph. iii. 5-Y ; Tit. i. 3.
It is not wonderful that his feelings rise at the thought of
bemg the principal instrument of a work thus predicted ! He
thereby becomes himself a predicted person, continuing as he
does the work of the prophets by fulfilling the future they
announced. The irpo, leforehand, added to the word promise,
is not a pleonasm ; it brings out forcibly the greatness of the
fact announced. The pronoun avTov, " His prophets," denotes
the close relation which unites a prophet to God, whose
instrument he is. The epithet holy, by which their writings
are characterized, is related to this pronoun. Holiness is the

124 PKEFACE.

seal of their divine origin. The absence of the article before
r^pacpal, scriptures, has a descriptive bearing : " in scriptures
which have this character, that they are holy."

Baur and his school ^ find in this mention of the prophetic
promises a proof of the Jiideo-Christian origin of the majority
of the church, and of the desire which the apostle had to
please it. But the Old Testament was read and known in
the churches of the Gentiles ; and the object with which the
apostle refers to the long theocratic preparation which had
paved the way for the proclamation of salvation, is clear
enough without our ascribing to him any so particular inten-
tion.— This mention of prophecy forms the transition to
ver. 3, where Jesus is introduced in the first place as the
Jewish Messiah, and then as the Son of God.

Vv. 3, 4. " Concerning His Son, horn of the race of David
according to the flesh ; estaUished as the Son of God with power,
according to the Spirit of holiness, hy His resurrection from the
dead : Jesus Christ our Lord." — The apostle first designates
the subject of gospel preaching in a summary way : it is Jesus
Christ viewed as the Son of God. The preposition Trepl,
concerning, might indeed depend on the substantive evayyeXiov
(gospel), ver. 1, in virtue of the verbal meaning of the word ;
but we should require in that case to take ver. 2 as a
parenthesis, which is by no means necessary. Why not
make this regimen dependent on the immediately preceding
verb : which He had promised afore ? This promise of the
preaching of the gospel related to His Son, since it was He
who was to be the subject of the preaching. — Here begins a
long period, first expressing this subject in a general way, then
analyzing it in parallel propositions, which, point by point,
form an antithesis to one another. They are not connected
by any of the numerous particles in which the Greek language
abounds ; their simple juxtaposition makes the contrast the
more striking. — It has been sought to explain the title Son
of God merely as an official name : the theocratic King by way
of eminence, the Messiah. The passages quoted in favour of
this meaning would suffice, if they were needed to refute it :
John 150, for example, where the juxtaposition of the two
titles, Son of God and King of Israel, so far from demonstrat-

' Pa%Um, I. 372 ; llilgenfeld, Einl. 311, etc.

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 125

ing them to be synonymous, refutes the view, and where the
repetition of the verb thou art gives of itself the proof of the
contrary ; and Ps. ii. 7, where Jehovah says to the Messiah :
" Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee." This last
expression is applied to the installation of the Messiah in His
kingly office. But to heget never signifies to establish as king ;
the word denotes a communication of life.

Some explain the title by the exceptional moral perfection
of Jesus, and the unbroken communion in which He lived
with God. Thus the name would include nothing transcend-
ing the limits of a simple human existence. But can this
explanation account for the passage, viii. 3 : " God sending
His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh " . . . ? It is obvious
from this phrase that Paul ascribes an existence to the Son
anterior to His coming in the flesh.

The title Son is also explained by our Lord's miraculous
hirth. So, for example, M. Bonnet : " In consequence of His
generation by the Holy Spirit, He is really the Son of God."
Such, indeed, is the meaning of the term in the message of
the angel to Mary : " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee
. . . wherefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall
be called the Son of God." But the passage, viii. 3, just
quoted shows that the apostle used the name in a more
elevated sense still, though the notion of the miraculous birth
has obviously a very close connection with that of pre-
existence.

Several theologians of our day think that the title Son of
God applies to Jesus only on account of His elevation to
divine glory, as the sequel of His earthly existence. But our
passage itself proves that, in the apostle's view, the divine
state which followed His resurrection is a recovered, and not
an acquired state. His personal dignity as Son of God, pro-
ceeded on from ver. 3, is anterior to the two phases of His
existence, the earthly and the heavenly, which are afterwards
described.

The idea of Christ's divine pre-existence is one famiHar to
St. Paul's mind, and alone explains the meaning which he
attached to the term Son oj God. Comp. (besides viii. 3)
1 Cor. viii. 6 : " One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things, and we by Him ; " Paul thus ascribes to Him the

126 PREFACE.

double creation, the physical and the spiritual ; 1 Cor. x. 4 :
" For they drank of that spiritual Eock that followed them :
and that Eock was Christ ; " Paul thus regards Christ as the
Divine Being who accompanied the Israelites in the desert, and
who, from the midst of the cloud, wrought all their deliver-
ances ; PhiL ii 6 : " Who, heing in the form of Gody . . .
emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men." Add 2 Cor. viii. 9 :
" Who, though He was rich, yet for your sakes became poor,
that ye through His poverty might be rich." The riches of
which He stripped Himself, according to the last of these
passages, are, according to the preceding, the form of God
belonging to Him, His divine mode of being anterior to His
incarnation ; and the poverty to which He descended is nothing
else than His servant form, or the human condition which He
put on. It is through His participation in our state of
dependence that we can be raised to His state of glory and
sovereignty. There remains, finally, the crowning passage on
this subject. Col. i. 15-17. — Son of God essentially, Christ
passed through two phases, briefly described in the two fol-
lowing propositions. The two participles with which they
both open serve as points of support to all the subsequent
determining clauses. The fundamental antithesis is that
between the two participles yevofjievov and 6pLo-devT0<; ; to this
there are attached two others ; the first : of the race of David
and Son of God ; the second : according to the flesh and
according to the Spirit of holiness. Two phrases follow in the
second proposition, with power and through His resurrection
from the dead, which seem to have no counterpart in the first.
But the attentive reader will have no difficulty in discovering
the two ideas corresponding to them. They are those of
weakness, a natural attribute of the flesh and of hirth ; for His
resurrection is to Jesus, as it were, a second birth. Let us first
study the former proposition by itself. The word ryevofievov
may bear the meaning either of iorn or hecome. In the second
case, the word relates to the act of incarnation, that mysterious
change wrought in His person when He passed from the
divine to the human state. But the participle yevofjuhov
being here construed with the preposition e/c, out of, from, it
is simpler to take the verb in the sense of heing horn, as in

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 127

Gal. iv. 4 : " horn of a woman " (yevofievov eK yvvaiKo^). The
regimen Kara adpKa, according to the flesh, serves, as Hofinann
says, " to restrict this affirmation to that side of His origin
whereby He inherited human nature." For the notion of a
different origin was previously implied in the phrase Son of
God. — What are we to understand here by the term flesh ?
The word has three very distinct meanings in the Old and
the New Testaments.^ 1. It denotes the muscular and soft
parts of the body, in opposition both to the hard parts, the
hones, and to the liquid parts, the hlood ; so Gen. ii. 23: " This
is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh ; " and John vi. 56:
" He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood." 2. The
word often denotes the entire human (or animal) hody, in
opposition to the soul ; for example, 1 Cor. xv. 3 9 : " There
is one flesh of men, another flesh of beasts," a saying in which
the word flesh, according to the context, denotes the entire
organism. In this second sense the pai-t is simply taken for
the whole. 3. By the same sort of figure, only still more
extended, the word flesh sometimes denotes the whole of man,
body and soul, in opposition to God the Creator and His
omnipotence. So Ps. Ixv. 2 : " Unto Thee shall all flesh
(every creature) come;" Eom. iii. 20 : "No flesh (no man)
shall be justified in His sight." The first of these three
meanings is inapplicable in our passage, for it would imply
that Jesus received from His ancestor David only the fleshy
parts ol His body, not the bones and blood ! The second is
no less so ; for it would follow from it that Jesus inherited
from David only His bodily life, and not the psychical, the
higher powers of human life, feeling, understanding, and will.
This opinion is incompatible with the affirmation of the full
humanity of Jesus, as we find in the writings of Paul (comp.
V. 15 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5) and o. John. For the latter, as weU
as Paul, ascribes to Jesus a human soul, a human spirit;
comp. xii. 27 : "My soul is troubled ;" xi. 33 : " He groaned
in His spirit" There remains, therefore, only the third
meaning, which suits the passage perfectly. As a human
creature, Jesus derives His origin from David. All that is
human in Him, spirit, soul, and hody (1 Thess. v. 23), so far

^ Comp. "Wendt's remarkable disserration : Die Begrijffe FleiscJi und Oeist im
Ublischen Sprachgebrauch (lo»7S).

128 PREP ACE.

as these elements are hereditary in mankind in general, this
whole part of His being is marked by the Davidic, and con-
sequently Jewish character. This royal and national seal is
impressed not only on His physical nature and temperament,
but also on His moral tendencies and aspirations ; and this
hereditary life could alone form the basis of His Messianic
calling, without, however, obliging us to forget that in the
Jew there is always the man, under the national, the human
element. This meaning which we give to the word flesh is
absolutely the same as that in the passage of John which
forms, as it were, the text of his Gospel : " The Word was
made flesh (o-a/of iyevero)" John i. 14.

Relation of this saying to the miraculous hirth. — In expressing
himself as he does here, does St. Paul think of Jesus' Davidic
descent through Joseph or through Mary ? In the former case
the miraculous birth would be excluded (Meyer and Eeuss).
But would this supposition be consistent, on the one hand, with
the idea which the apostle forms of Jesus' absolute holiness ; on
the other, with his doctrine of the transmission of sin to the
whole human race ? He says of Jesus, viii. 3 : " Sent in the
likeness of sinful flesh ; " 2 Cor. v. 21 : " He who hneio no sin ; "
he ascribes to Him the part of an expiatory victim {/Xaffrvipm),
which excludes the barest idea of a minimum of sin. And yet,
according to him, all Adam's descendants participate in the
heritage of sin (v. 12, 19, iii. 9). How reconcile these propo-
sitions, if his view is that Jesus descends from David and from
Adam absolutely in the same sense as the other descendants of
Adam or David ? Paul thus necessarily held the miraculous
birth ; ^ and that so much the more, as the fact is conspicuously
related in the Gospel of Luke, his companion in work. A con-
tradiction between these two fellow-labourers on this point is
inadmissible. It is therefore through the intervention of Mary,
and of Mary alone, that Jesus, according to Paul's view,
descended from David. And such is also the meaning of the
genealogy of Jesus in Luke's Gospel (iii. 23).^ Thus there is
nothing to prevent us from placing the beginning of the opera-
tion of the Holy Spirit on the person of Jesus (to which the
words : according to the Spirit of holiness, ver. 4, refer) at His
very birth.

Yet this mode of hereditary existence does not exhaust His

* See this proof beautifully developed inGess: Christi Person und Werk, 2d
«1. t. II. p. 210 et seq.

• See the explanation of the passage in my Commentary.

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 129

whole being. The title Son of God, placed foremost, contains
a wealth whicli transcends the contents of this first assertion,
rer. 3, and becomes the subject of the second proposition,
ver. 4. Many are the interpretations given of the participle
6pLa6evTo<;. The verb opl^eiv (from 0/109, boundary) signifies :
to draw a limit, to separate a domain from all that surrounds
it, to distinguish a person or a thing. The marking off may
be only in thought ; the verb then signifies : to destine to,
decree, decide. So Luke xxii. 22, and perhaps Acts x. 42 and
xvii. 31. Or the limitation may be traced in words; the
verb then signifies : to declare. Or, finally, it may be mani-
fested in an external act, a fact obvious to the senses, which
leads to the meaning : to irvstall, establish, or demonstrate by a
sign. The first meaning : to destine, to, has been here attempted
by Hofmann. But this sense is incompatible with the
regimen : by the resurrection, and it would certainly have
been expressed by the word irpoopLo-Oevro^, destined beforehand
(comp. viii. 29, 30 ; 1 Pet. i. 20), it being impossible that the
divine decree relative to the glorification of Jesus should be
posterior to His mission to the world. Founding on the
second meaning, many (Osterv., Oltram.) translate : " declared
to be the Son of God." But the notion of declaration, and
even the stronger one of demonstration, are insufficient in the
context. For the resurrection of Jesus not only manifested
or demonstrated what He was ; it wrought a real transforma-
tion in His mode of being. Jesus required to pass from His
state as son of David to that of Son of God, if He was to
accomplish the work described in ver. 5, and which the
apostle has in view, that of the calling of the Gentiles. And
it was His resurrection which introduced Him into this new
state. The only meaning, therefore, which suits the context
is the third, that of establishing. Peter says similarly. Acts
ii. 36 : " God hath made (iTroirjcre) that same Jesus, whom ye
have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Hofmann has disputed
the use of the verb opl^etv in this sense. But Meyer, with
good ground, adduces the following saying of a poet : o-e Geop
copiae Balfjbcov, " destiny made thee God." Not that the apostle
means, as Pfleiderer would have it, that Jesus became the Son
of God by His resurrection. He was restored, and restored
wholly, — that is to say, with His human nature, — to the position

GODET. I KOM. I.

130 PREFACE.

of Son of God which He had renounced on becoming incarnate.
The thought of Paul is identical with that of the prayer of
Jesus on the eve of His death, as we have it in John's Gospel
(xviL 5) : " Father, glorify Thou me with the glory which I
had with Thee before the world was." Jesus always was the
Son ; at His baptism, through the manifestation of the Father,
He recovered His consciousness of Sonship. At His resurrec-
tion He was re-established, and that as man, in His state of
Sonship. The antithesis of the two terms, horn and estahlished,
so finely chosen, seems thus perfectly correct.

Three regimens serve to determine the participle established.
The first indicates the manner : iv hwdixei, with power ; the
second, the moral cause • Kara irvevfia a^iwGvvr)^, according
to the spirit of holiness ^ the third, the efficient cause : i^
avaa-Taaew^ veKpcov, hy His resurrection from the dead. With
poweTy signifies : in a striking, triumphant manner. Some have
thought to take this regimen as descriptive of the substantive
Son of God ; "the Son of God in the glory of His power," in
opposition to the weakness of His earthly state. But the
antithesis of the two propositions is that between the Son of
God and the son of David, and not that between the Son of
God in power and the Son of God in weakness. The regimen :
with power, refers therefore to the participle established : estab-
lished by an act in which the power of God is strikingly
manifested (the resurrection, wrought by the glory of the
Father, Eom. vi. 4). The second regimen : according to the spirit
of holiness, has been explained in a multitude of ways. Some
have regarded it as indicating the divine nature of Jesus in
contrast to His humanity, the spirit of holiness being thus the
second person of the Trinity; so Melanchthon and Bengel.
But, in this case, what term would be left to indicate the
third ? The second divine person is designated by the names
Son or Word, not Spirit. According to Theodoret, what is
meant is the miraculous 'power which Jesus possessed on the
earth ; but how are we to explain the complement of holiness ?
and what relation is there between the virtue of working
miracles, possessed by so many prophets, and the installation
of Jesus in His place as Son of God ? Luther understood by
it the effusion of the Holy Spirit on the church, effected by
Christ glorified. Then it would be necessary to translate;

CHAP. I. 3, 4. 131

"demonstrated to be the Son of God by the spirit of holiness,
whom He poured out." But this meaning does not suit the
third regimen, whereby the resurrection is indicated as the
means of the opl^eiv, not Pentecost. No doubt one might, in
this case, translate : " since the resurrection." But Pentecost
did not begin from that time. Meyer and others regard the
spirit of holiness as meaning, in opposition to the flesh : the
inner man in Jesus, the spirit as an element of His human
nature, in opposition to the outer man, the body. But, as we
have seen, the human nature, body and soul, was already
embraced completely in the word JlesJi, ver. 3. How, then,
could the spirit, taken as an element of human nature, be
contrasted with this nature itself? Is, then, the meaning of
the words so difficult to apprehend ? The term spirit (or
breath) of holiness shows clearly enough that the matter here
in question is the action displayed on Christ by the Holy
Spirit during His earthly existence. In proportion as Jesus
was open to this influence. His whole human nature received
the seal of consecration to the service of God — that is to say,
of holiness. Such is the moral fact indicated Heb. ix. 14 :
" Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot
to God." The result of this penetration of His entire being
by the breath of the Holy Spirit was this : at the time of His
death there could be fully realized in Him the law expressed
by the Psalmist : " Thou wilt not suffer Thy Holy One to see
corruption" (Ps. xvi. 10). Perfect holiness excludes physical
dissolution. The necessary corollary of such a life and state
was therefore the resurrection. This is the relation expressed
by the preposition Kara, according to, agreeably to. He was
established as the Son of God in a striking manner by His
resurrection from the dead, agreeaUy to the spirit of holiness,
which had reigned in Him and in His very body. In the
passage, viii. 11, the apostle applies the same law to the
resurrection of believers, when he says " that their bodies
shall rise again, in virtue of the Holy Spirit who dwells in
them." Paul is not therefore seeking, as has been thought, to
establish a contrast between inward {irvevixa, spirit) and out-
ward {crdp^, flesh), nor between divine (the Holy Spirit) and
human (the flesh), in the person of Jesus, which would be a
needless digression in the context. What he contrasts is, on

132 PREFACE.

the one hand, the naturally Jewish and Davidic form of His
earthly appearance ; and, on the other, the higher form of being
on which He entered at the close of this Jewish phase of His
existence, in virtue of the principle of holy consecration which
had marked all His activity here below. For this new form
of existence is the condition on which alone He could accom-
plish the work described in the verse immediately following.
The thought of the apostle does not diverge for an instant,
but goes straight to its aim. — The third regimen literally
signifies : hy a resurrection from the dead (ef ava(TTda-e(o^
veKpMv). He entered upon His human life by a simple hirth ;
but in this state as a son of David He let the spirit of holiness
reign over Him. And therefore He was admitted by a resur-
rection into the glorious life of Sonship. The preposition ef,
out of, may here signify either since or in consequence of Tlie
first meaning is now almost abandoned, and undoubtedly with
reason ; for the idea of a simple succession in time does not
suit the gravity of the thought. Paul wishes to describe the
immense transformation which the facts of His death and
resurrection produced in the person of Jesus. He has left in
the tomb His particular relation to the Jewish nation and the
family of David, and has appeared through His resurrection
freed from those wrappings which He had humbly worn
during His earthly life ; comp. the remarkable expression :
minister of the circumcision, xv. 8. Thus it is that, in virtue
of His resurrection and as the Son of God, He was able
henceforth to enter into connection with all mankind, w^hich
He could not do so long as He was acting only as the son of
David; comp. Matt. xv. 24: "I am not sent but unto the
lost sheep of the house of Israel." The absence of the article
before the word resurrection and before the plural dead is
somewhat strange, and must be explained in the way indicated
by Hofmann : " By an event such as that which takes place
when the dead rise again." There needed a death and resur-
rection, if He was to pass from the state of son of David to
that of Son and Christ of humanity. It is therefore on the
character of the event that the apostle insists, rather than on
the fact itself.

Before passing to the subject of the calling of the Gentiles,
which is the direct conseq^uence of this transformation in the

CHAl'. I. 3, 4. 133

person of the Messiah wrought by the resurrection, Paul sums
up in three terms the analysis of His person which he has
just given: Jesus; this name denotes the historical person,
the common subject of those different forms of existence ; tlie
title Christ or Messiah, which sums up ver. 3 (Son of David),
and that of Lord, — that is to say, the representative of the
divine sovereignty, — which follows from His elevation to the
position of Son (ver. 4). On the title of Lord, see 1 Cor.
viii. 6; Phil. ii. 9-11. When he says our, Paul thinks
of all those who by faith have accepted the sovereignty of
Jesus.

The intention of the passage, vv. 3, 4, has been strangely
misunderstood. Some say : it is a summary of the gospel
doctrine which the apostle means to expound in this treatise.
But a summary is not stated in an address. The true sum-
mary of the Epistle, besides, is found i. 17. Finally, 'c^ns^o-
lofjical doctrine is precisely one of the heads, the absence of
which is remarkable in our Epistle. Gess says : " One must
suppose that the apostle was concerned to sum up in this
introduction the most elevated sentiments which filled his
heart regarding the Mediator of salvation." But why put
these reflections on the person of Christ in the address, and
between what Paul says of his apostleship in general (vv. 1,
2), and what he afterwards adds regarding his apostleship to
the Gentiles in particular (vv. 5, 6) ? Hofmann thinks tliat
Paul, in referring to the relation between Jesus and the old
covenant, wishes to indicate all that God gives us new in
Christ. But this observation would suit any other place
rather than the address. The most singular explanation is
Mangold's: "A Judeo-Christian church like that of Eome
might be astonished at Paul's addressing it as if it had been
of Gentile origin ; and the apostle has endeavoured to weaken
this impression by reminding it (ver. 2) that his apostleship
had been predicted in the Old Testament, and (ver. 3) that
the object of his preaching is above all the Messiah, the Son
of David." So artificial an explanation refutes itself. The
apostle started (vv. 1, 2) from the idea of his apostleship, but
in order to come to that of his apostleship to the Gentiles,
which alone serves to pxplain the step he is now taking in
writing to the Christians of Eome (vv. 5, 6). To pass from

134 PREFACE.

the first of these ideas to the second, he rises to the author of
his apostleship, and describes Him as the Jewish Messiah,
called to gather together the lost sheep of the house of Israel
(ver. 5) ; then as the Son of God raised from the dead, able to
put Himself henceforth in direct communication with the
Gentiles through an apostolate instituted on their behalf
(ver. 4). In reality, to accomplish this wholty new work,
Jesus required to be set free from the form of Jewish nation-
ality and the bond of theocratic obligations. He must be
placed in one uniform relation to the whole race. This was
the effect of the transformation wrought in His person by His
death and resurrection. Thus there is no difficulty in under-
standing the transition from ver. 4 to ver. 5.

Vv. 5, 6 : "By whom we have received grace and apostleship,
for the ohedience of faith among all the Gentiles, for the glory of
His name : among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ."
The words hC ov, by whom, exactly express the transition
which w^e have just indicated. It is from His heavenly glory
and from His state as Son of God that Christ has founded the
new apostolate, and called him whom He has invested with it
(corap. Gal. i. 1). — The plural ekd^ofiev, ive have received, is
explained by some : / and the other apostles ; by Hofmann : I
and my apostolical assistants (Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, etc.).
But the first meaning is inadmissible, because the matter in
question here is exclusively the apostleship to the Gentiles ; and
the second is equally so, because Paul, speaking here in his
official character, can associate no one with him in the dignity
which the Lord has conferred on him personally. "What we
have here is therefore the plural of category, which the Greeks
readily use when they wish to put the person out of view, and
to present only the principle which he represents, or the work
with which he is charged. The words : x^P^^ '^^^ airoaroXriv,
grace and apostleship, are regarded by some (Chrys., Philippi)
as equivalent to : the grace of apostleship. But if this had
been Paul's meaning, it would have been easy for him to
express it so. Hofmann applies the two terms to the ministry
of the apoitle, as presenting it, the former, in connection with
his own person — it is a grace conferred on him ; the latter, in
its relation to others — it is his mission to them. But if the
term grace be referred to Paul's person, it seems to us much

CHAP. I. 5, 6. 135

simpler to apply it to the gift of salvation which was bestowed
on himself; the second term, apostleship, comes thus quite
naturally to designate his mission for the salvation of the
world. We have seen (Introd. p. 20) how these two gifts,
personal salvation and apostleship, were, in Paul's case, one
and the same event. The object of Christ in according him
grace and calling him to the apostleship, was to spread the
obedience of faith. It is impossible to understand by this
obedience the holiness produced by faith. For, before speaking
of the effects of faith, faith must exist; and the matter in
question is precisely the calling of the apostle destined to lay
the foundation of it. Meyer's meaning is still more inad-
missible, submission to the faith. In that case, we should
require to give to the term faith the meaning of : Christian
truth (objectively speaking), a meaning the word never has in
the New Testament, as Meyer acknowledges. So he under-
stands obedience to the inward sentiment of faith ! This is a
form of speech of which it would be still more difficult to find
examples. The only possible meaning is : the obedience
which consists of faith itself. By faith man performs an act of
obedience to the divine manifestation which demands of him
submission and co-operation. The refusal of faith is there-
fore called, X. 3, a disobedience (ov;^ vireTdyrjaav). The regimen
following : among all the Gentiles, might be connected with the
word apostleship, but it is simpler to connect it directly with
the preceding regimen, the obedience of faith : " an obedience
to be realized among all Gentiles." The term edvrj, which we
translate by Gentiles, has been taken here by almost all critics
who hold the Jewish origin of the Christians of Eome, in a
wider acceptation. They give it the general meaning of
nations, in order to include under it the Jews, who are also
a nation, and consequently the Christians of Eome. This
interpretation has been defended chiefly by Elickert and Baur.
But it is easy to see that it is invented to serve an a priori
thesis. The word eOvrj undoubtedly signifies strictly : nations.
But it has taken, like the word gojim in the Old Testament
(Gen. xii. 3 ; Isa. xlii. 6, etc.), a definite, restricted, and
quasi-technical sense : the nations, in opposition to the chosen
feople (6 Xao9, the people). This signification occurs from
beginning to end of the New Testament (Acts ix. 15, xi. 1, 18.

136 PKEFACB.

xxviii. 28; Gal. 1 16, ii. 7-9, iii. 14; Epk ii. 11, iii. 6).'
It is applied in the most uniform manner in our Epistle
(ii 14, 15, iii. 29, xi. 13, xv. 9, 11). Besides, the context
imperatively demands this limited sense. Paul has just been
explaining the institution of a special apostleship to the
Gentiles, by a transformation in the Lord's mode of existence ;
the whole demonstration would be useless if his aim were to
prove that the believers of Eome, though Judeo-Christians,
belong also to the domain of his mission. Mangold feels the
difficulty ; for, in order to remain faithful to Baur's view as
to the composition of the Roman church, without falling into
his false interpretation of the word eOvT], he tries to take it in
a purely geographical sense. He thinks that by the nations,
Paul means to contrast the inhabitants of the world in general,
whether Jews or Gentiles, with the Jews strictly so called
divelliTig in Palestine. The apostle means to say : " The church
of Rome, though composed of Judeo- Christians, belongs geo-
graphically to the world of the Gentiles, and consequently
comes within my domain as the apostle of the Gentiles." But
what in this case becomes of the partition of domains marked
out in Gal. ii. ? It must signify that Peter reserved for him-
self to preach in Palestine, and Paul out of Palestine ! Who
can give this meaning to the famous passage. Gal. ii. ? Be-
sides, as Beyschlag well says, this partition between the
apostles rested on a difference of gifts, wliich had nothing to
do with geography, and evidently referred to the religious and
moral character of those two great divisions of mankind, Jews
and Gentiles. It must therefore be allowed that the words :
among all nations, refer to Gentiles, and to Gentiles as such.
Baur has sought to turn the word all to account in favour of
his interpretation; but Paul uses it precisely to introduce
what he is going to say, ver. 6, that the Romans, though so
remote, yet formed part of his domain, since it embraces all
Gentiles without exception. It matters little, therefore, that they
are still personally unknown to him, he is their apostle never-
theless.— The third regimen : virep rov 6v6/jLaTo<;, for, in behalf
or for the glory of His name, depends on the whole verse from
the verb we have received. Paul does not forget that this is
the highest end of his apostleship : to exalt the glory of that

^ I mention only some thoroughly characteristic passages.

CHAP. I. 5, 6. IS"?

name by extending the sphere of his action, and increasing
the number of those who invoke it as the name of their Lord.
The words sound like an echo of the message of Jesus to Paul
by Ananias : " He is a chosen vessel to carry my name to the
Gentiles;'' comp. 3 John 7. By this word Paul reveals to
us at once the aim of his mission, and the inward motive of
all his work. And what a work was that ! As Christ in His
own person broke the external covering of Israelitish form, so
He purposed to break the national wrapping within which the
kingdom of God had till then been enclosed ; and to spread
the glory of His name to the very ends of the earth, He
called Paul.

Ver. G may be construed in two ways : either the kXtjtoI
'J. X. may be taken as a predicate : " in the midst of whom
(Gentiles) ye are the called of Jesits Christ" or the last words
may be taken in apposition to the subject : " of the number
of whom ye are, ye who are called of Jesus Christ'' The
former construction does not give a simple meaning; for the
verb ye are has then two predicates which conflict with one
another : " ye are in the midst of them," and : " ye are the
called of Jesus Christ." Besides, is it necessary to inform
the Christians of Eome that they live in the midst of the
Gentiles, and that they are called by Jesus Christ ? Add the
Kal, also, which would signify : like all the other Christians in
the world, and you have an addition wholly superfluous, and,
besides, far from clear. What has led commentators like De
Wette, Meyer, etc., to hold this first construction is, that it
seemed to them useless to make Paul say : " ye are among,
or ye are of the number of the Gentiles." But, on the con-
trary, this idea is very essential. It is the minor premiss of
the syllogism within which Paul, so to speak, encloses the
Ptomans. The major : Christ has made me the Apostle of the
Gentiles ; the minor : ye are of the number of the Gentiles ;
conclusion : therefore, in virtue of the authority of that Christ
who has called you as He has called me, ye are the sheep of
my fold. The Kai, also, from this point of view is easily
explained : " of the number of whom (Gentiles) ye also are,
ye Eomans, falling consequently like the other Gentiles called
by me personally to my apostolical domain." The title kXtjtoi
'I. X., called of Jesiis Christ, corresponds to the title which

138 PEEFACE.

Paul gave himself, ver. 1 : kXtjto'; d7r6aTo\o<i, *' an apostle hy
calling." They are bound to hear him in virtue of the same
authority under which he writes to them, that of Jesus Christ.
The complement : " called of Jesus Christ^' may be taken as a
genitive of possession : " called ones belonging to Jesus Christ/'
But it is better to regard it as a genitive of cause : " called ones,
whose calling comes from Jesus Christ." For the important
thing in the context is not the commonplace idea that they
belong to the Lord ; it is the notion of the act by which the
Lord Himself acted on them to make them believers, as on
Paul to make him their apostle. The idea of calling (of God
or Christ), according to Paul's usage, includes two thoughts,
an outward solicitation by preaching, and an inward and
simultaneous drawing by the Holy Spirit. It need not be
said that neither the one nor the other of these influences is
irresistible, nor that the adhesion of faith remains an act of
freedom. This adhesion is here implied in the fact that the
Romans are members of the church and readers of these
lines.

If we needed a confirmation of the Gentile origin of the
majority of this church, it would be found in overwhelming
force in vv. 5 and 6, especially when taken in connection
with ver. 4 ; and really it needs far more than common
audacity to attempt to get out of them the opposite idea, and
to paraphrase them, as Yolkmar does, in the following way :
" I seem to you no doubt to be only the apostle of the
Hellenes ; but, nevertheless, I am called by Jesus Christ to
preach the gospel to all nations, even to the non-Hellenes
such as you, believers of Jewish origin ! "

We come now to the second and third parts of the address,
the indication of the readers and the expression of the writer's
prayer.

Ver. 7. " To all the well-heloved of God who are at Rome}
saints hy way of call : Grace to yo^o and peace from God our
FatJier, and the Lord Jesus Christ'' — The dative : to all those,
might be dependent on a verb understood: / write, or /
address myself; but it is simpler to connect it with the verb
implied in the statement of the prayer which immediately
follows : " To you all may there he given.'' The adjective all
* The words iv P«^ii are wanting in G g.

CHAP. I. 7. 139

would be quite superfluous here if Paul had not the intention of
widening the circle of persons spoken of in ver. 6 as being of
the number of the Gentiles. Paul certainly has no doubt that
there are also among the Christians of Eome some brethren of
Jewish origin, and by his to all he now embraces them in the
circle of those to whom he addresses his letter. We need
not separate the two datives : to all those who are at Borne and
to the well-heloved of God, as if they were two different regi-
mens ; the dative : well-heloved of God, is taken substantively :
to all the well-deloved of God who are at Rome. The words
denote the entire number of Eoraan believers, Jews and
Gentiles. All men are in a sense loved of God (John iii. 1 6) ;
but apart from faith, this love of God can only be that of
compassion. It becomes an intimate love, like that of father
and child, only through the reconciliation granted to faith.
Here is the first bond between the apostle and his readers :
the common love of which they are the objects. This
bond is strengthened by another : the internal work which
has flowed from it, consecration to God, holiness : k\7jto2<;
ay/oi?, saints ly way of call. We need not translate either :
called to he saints, which would imply that holiness is in
their case no more as yet than a destination, or called and
holy (Ostervald), which would give to the notion of calling
too independent a force. Paul means that they are really
saints, and that if they possess this title of nobility before
God, it is because Christ has honoured them with His call,
by drawing some from the defilements of paganism, and
raising others from the external consecration of God's ancient
people to the spiritual consecration of the new. Under the
old covenant, consecration to God was hereditary, and attached
to the external rite of circumcision. Under the new economy,
consecration is that of the will first of all, and so of the entire
life. It passes from within outwards, and not from without
inwards ; it is real holiness. The words iv 'Pcofirj, at Borne,
are omitted in the Greek text of the Cod. de Boerner. (G), as
well as in the Latin translation accompanying it (g). This
might be regarded as an accidental omission, if it were not
repeated in ver. 15. Eiickert and Eenan think that it arises
from manuscripts intended for other churches, and in which,
accordingly, the indication of the readers had been left blank

140 PREFACE.

But in this case would it not occur in a larger niimher of
documents ? Meyer supposes that some church or other,
having the letter copied for its own special use, had inten-
tionally suppressed the words. But it needs to be explained
why the same thing did not take place with other Epistles.
Perhaps the cause of the omission in this case was the con-
trast between the general character of the contents of the letter
and the local destination indicated in the suppressed words,
the second fact appearing contradictory to the first (see ver. 1 5).

Why does the apostle not salute this community of
believers, as he does those of Thessalonica, Galatia, and
Corinth, with the name of church ? The different Christian
groups which existed at Eome, and several of which are men-
tioned in chap, xvi., were perhaps not yet connected with one
another by a common presbyterial organization.

The end of ver. 7 contains the development of the third part
of the address, the prayer. For the usual term 'XP'lpeLv, joy
and pros'perity, Paul substitutes the blessings which form the
Christian's wealth and happiness. Grace, x^pi^^, denotes the
love of God manifested in the form of pardon towards sinful
man ; peace, elprjvi], the feeling of profound calm or inward
quiet which is communicated to the heart by the possession
of reconciliation. It may seem that the title : well-helovcd of
God, given above, included these gifts; but the Christian
possesses nothing which does not require to be ever received
anew, and daily increased by new acts of faith and prayer.
The Apocalypse says that " salvation flows from the throne
of God and of the Lamb ; " it is from God and from Jesus
Christ that Paul likewise derives the two blessings which he
wishes for the believers of Eome ; from God as Father, and
from Jesus Christ as Lord or Head of the church. We need
not explain these two regimens as if they meant ''from God
through Christ." The two substantives depend on a common
preposition: on the part of The apostle therefore has in view
not a source and a channel, but two sources. The love of God
and the love of Christ are two distinct loves ; the one is a
father's, the other a brother's. Christ loves with Eis oion
love, Horn. v. 15. Comp. John v. 21 {those whom He will)
and 26 {He hath life in Himself). Erasmus was unhappy in
taking the words : Jesus Christ our Lord, as a second comple-

CHAP. I. 8. 141

ment to the word Father : " our Father and that of Jesus Christ!*
But in this case the complement Jesus Christ would have
required to be placed first, and the notion of God's fatherhood
in relation to Christ would be without purpose in the context.
The conviction of Christ's divine nature can alone explain
this construction, according to which His person and that of
the Father are made alike dependent on one and the same
proposition.

It is impossible not to admire the prudence and delicacy
which St. Paul shows in the discharge of his task towards
this church. To justify his procedure, he goes back on his
apostleship ; to justify his apostleship to them, Gentiles,
he goes back to the transformation which the resurrection
wrought in Christ's person, when from being Jewish Messiah
it made Him Lord in the absolute sense of the word. Like
a true pastor, instead of lording it over the conscience of his
liock, he seeks to associate it with his own.

SECOND PASSAGE (I. 8-15).

The Interest lon^ taken hy the Apostle in the Christians of Borne.

The address had drawn a sort of official bond between the
apostle and the church. But Paul feels the need of converting
it into a heart relation ; and to this end the following piece is
devoted. The apostle here assures his readers of the profound
interest which he has long felt in them, though he has not
yet been able to show it by visiting them. He begins, as
usual, by thanking God for the work already wrought in them,
ver. 8 ; then he expresses his Hvely and long cherished desire
to labour for its growth, either in the way of strengthening
themselves spiritually, vv. 9-12, or in the way of increasing
the number of believers in the city of Eome, vv. 13-15.

Ver. 8. "First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for^
you all, that your faith is s'poken of throughout the whole world"
— The apostle knows that there is no more genuine proof of
sincere affection than intercession ; hence he puts his prayer
for them first. The word irpcoTov, in the first place (especially

^ The T. R. reads v-rtp, with E G L P and the Mnn. Uipt is found in K
A B C D K and 10 Mnn.

142 PJiEFACE.

with the particle fikv), leads us to expect a secondly (eireira
he). As this word does not occur in the sequel, some have
thought it necessary to give to irpcorov the meaning of above
all. This is unnecessary. The second idea the apostle had
in view is really found in ver. 10, in the prayer which he
offers to God that he may be allowed soon to go to Eome.
This prayer is the natural supplement of the thanksgiving.
Only the construction has led the apostle not to express it in
the strictly logical form : in tJie second place. — In the words
" my God',' he sums up all his perso7ial experiences of God's
fatherly help, in the various circumstances of his life, and
particularly in those of his apostleship. Herein there is a
particular revelation which every believer receives for himself
alone, and which he sums up when he calls God his God ;
comp. the phrase God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,
and more especially the words Gen. xxviii. 20, 21. Paul's
thanksgiving is presented through the mediation of Jesus
Christ ; he conveys it through Christ as head of the church,
and more immediately his own. Meyer thinks that Christ is
rather mentioned here as the author of the work for ■\vhich
Paul gives thanks ; but this is not the natural meaning of the
phrase: I thank through; comp. besides, viii. 34. The pro-
pagation of the gospel at Eome appears to Paul a service
rendered to him personally, as apostle of the Gentiles. — The
phrase : on account of you all, seems a little exaggerated, since
he does not know them all personally. But would there be
a human being at Eome gained for Christ, known or unknown,
whose faith was not a subject of joy to Paul ! The preposition
virkp, in behalf of, which is found in the T. E. (with the latest
Mjj.), would express more affection than irepi, about ; but the
latter is more simple, and occurs in some Mjj. of the three
families. What increases Paul's joy is, that not only do they
believe themselves, but their faith, the report of which is spread
everywhere, opens a way for the gospel to other countries ;
comp. a similar passage addressed to the Thessalonians (1 Thess.
i. 8). The oti, because, serves to bring into relief a special
feature in the cause of joy already indicated; comp. 1 Cor.
i. 5 (the oTi in its relation to ver. 4). The phrase : through-
out the whole world, is hyperbolical ; it alludes to the position
of Rome as the capital of the world ; comp. Col. i. 6.

CHAP. I. 9, 10. 143

Vv. 9, 10. " For God is my witness, wJwm I serve with my
spirit in the gospel of His Son, how without ceasing I make
mention of you, making request in all my prayers, if hy any
means now at length I might have a prosperous journey hy the
will of God to come unto you" — This thanksgiving of the
apostle was an inward action of which none but God could
have knowledge ; and as the words, ver. 8, might seem charge-
able with exaggeration, he appeals to the one witness of his
inner life. Paul thinks of those times of intimate intercourse
which he has daily with his God in the exercise of his
ministry ; for it is at His feet, as it were, that he discharges
this task. He says : in my spirit, that is to say, in the most
intimate part of his being, wliere is the organ by which his
soul communicates with the divine world. The spirit is
therefore here one of the elements of his human nature
(1 Thess. V. 23) ; only it is evidently thought of as penetrated
with the Divine Spirit. When Paul says : in the gospel of His
Son, it is clear that he is not thinking of the matter, but of the
act of evangelical preaching. This is for him a continual act
of worship which he performs only on his knees. The words :
of His Son, bring out the supreme gravity of the act. How,
in fact, can one take part in a work which concerns the Son,
otherwise than in concert with God Himself ! The a)9 need
be translated neither by that (the fact), which expresses too
little, nor by how much (the degree), which is too strong, but
by how. The word refers to the mode of this inward worship,
as it is developed in what follows. The expression : without
ceasing, explains the : " I give thanks for you all" which had
preceded (ver. 8). Hence the for at the beginning of the
verse.

Ver. 10. With the thanksgiving there is connected, as a
second matter which he has to communicate to them, his not
less unwearied prayer that he might be able soon to visit
them. The words : always in my prayers, refer certainly to the
following participle : making request, and not to what precedes,
a sense which would lead to a pleonasm. Not one of the
intimate dealings of the apostle with his God, in which this
subject does not find a place. — 'Ett/, strictly speaking, on
occasion of The conjunction eoTro)';, if perhaps, indicates the
calcLilation of chances ; and the adverbs once, at length, the sort

144 PREFACE.

of impatience which he puts into his calculation. The term
evoBovv strictly signifies : to cause one to journey prosperously/,
whence in general : to make one succeed in a business ; comp.
1 Cor. xvi. 2. As in this context the subject in question is
precisely the success of a journey, it is difficult not to see m
the choice of the term an allusion to its strict meaning : " if
at length I shall not be guided prosperously in my journey to
you." By whom ? The words : hy the will of God, tell us ;
favourable circumstances are the work of that all-powerful
hand. Vv. 11, 12 indicate the most immediate motive of
this ardent desire.

Vv. 11, 12. "For I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established;
or to speak more 'properly, that I may be comforted together with
you by the mutual action of 02cr faith, yours and mine." —
Enriched with the gifts of God as he was, could the apostle
help feeling the need of imparting some of them to a
church so important as that of Eome ? There is in the verb
iTTLTToOo), along with the expression of the desire which goes
out toward them, one of regret at not having been able to come
sooner. A 'xapia^a, gift, is a concrete manifestation of grace
(%<x/)fc9). The epithet spiritual shows the nature and source
of the gift which he hopes to impart to his readers (the spirit,
the TTvevfjia). The word v/jllv, to you, is inserted between the
substantive and the adjective to bring out the latter more
forcibly. The apostle hopes that by this communication they
will receive an increase of divine strength within them. He
puts the verb in the passive : that ye may be strengthened. We
need not translate : to confirm you (Oltram.) ; on the contrary,
Paul uses the passive form to put out of view the part he
takes personally, and to exhibit only the result; it is God
who will strengthen. There would be a degree of charla-
tanism in the choice of the word strengthen, confirm, if, as
Baur, and following him. Mangold, Sabatier, etc., think, the
apostle's object in this letter was to bring about a radical
cliange in the existing conception of the gospel at Eome. To
strengthen, is not to turn one into another way, it is to make
him walk firmly on that on which he is already. But Paul was
too sincerely humble, and at the same time too delicate in his
feelings, to allow it to be supposed that the spiritual advantage

CHAP. I. 11, 12. 145

resulting from his stay among them would all be on one side.
He hastens to add that he hopes himself to have his share, ver,
1 2. The first words of this verse have generally been misunder-
stood; there has been given to them the meaning of the phrase
TovT €(7Ti, that is to say (Ostervald, Oltram.). It is forgotten
that the Se which is added here (tovto Be iari) indicates not a
simple explanatory repetition, but a certain modification and
progress in the idea. The meaning, therefore, is : or to speak
more properly. In point of fact, Paul had yet to add to the
idea of the good which he reckoned on doing, that of the good
which he hoped himself to receive. This is precisely what
he has in view in the strange construction of the words which
immediately follow. There is no doubt that the preposition
avv, with, in the compound verb avfiirapaKXTjdrjvai, to he
encouraged with, signifies : " I with you, Christians of Eome."
For the subject of the verb can be no other than the apostle,
on account of the words which follow : in the midst of you.
Fritzsche attempts to give it a you for its subject, vfia<; under-
stood ; Meyer and Hofmann would make this infinitive directly
dependent on the word / desire, ver. 11: "I desire to see you,
and to be encouraged in the midst of you." But this is to
mistake the evident relation between the two passive infini-
tives, so closely connected with one another. " To the end
that ye may be strengthened ; and, to speak more correctly,
that with you I may be encouraged among you." The " tuith
(you) " brings out the notion of their strengthening, to add to
it immediately, and that in the same word (in Greek) the
notion of the encouragement derived by Paul himself, as being
one with theirs ; for is not the strengthening of others the
means of encouraging himself? One shares in the strength
which he imparts. The apostle seems to say that there is in
his desire as much holy selfishness as holy zeal. The substi-
tution of the word encourage (in speaking of Paul) for that
of strengthen (in speaking of them) is significant. In Paul's
case, the only thing in question is his subjective feeling, which
might be a little depressed, and which would receive a new
impulse from the success of his work among them ; comp.
Acts xxviii. 15 (lie took courage, eXa^e Odpao^). This same
delicacy of expression is kept up in the words which follow.
By the among you, the apostle says that their mere presence

GODET. K llOM. T.

146 PKEFACE.

will of itself be strengthening to him. This appears literally in
what foUows : " hy my faith and yours one upon another ^ These
last words express a reciprocity in virtue of which his faith
will act on theirs and theirs on his ; and how so ? In virtue
of their having that faith in common (by the faith of you and
of me). It is because they live in this common atmosphere
of one and the same faith that they can act and react spiritu-
ally, he on them, and they on him. What dignity, tact, and
grace in these words, by which the apostle at once transforms
the active part which he is obliged to ascribe to himself in the
first place into a receptive part, and so to terminate with the
notion which unites these two points of view, that of recipro-
city in the possession of a common moral life ! Erasmus has
classed all this in the category of pia vafrities and sancta
adulatio} He did not understand the sincerity of Paul's
humility. But what Paul wishes is not merely to impart new
strength to the Christians of Eome while reinforcing his own,
it is also to aid in the increase of their church. He comes as
an apostle, not only as a Christian visitor ; such is the mean-
ing of the words which follow (vv. 13-15).

Vv. 13, 14. "Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren,
that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (but was hindered
hitherto), that I might have some fruit'^ among you also, even as
among other Gentiles. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to
the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise." — His readers
might ask with some reason how it happened that Paul, having
been an apostle for more than twenty years, had not yet
found time to come and preach the good news in the Capital
of the world. The phrase : / would not have you ignorant,
has something slightly mysterious about it, which will be
explained presently. The Se, now, expresses a gradation, but
not one from the simple desire (ver. 11) to ihQ formed purpose
(ver. 13). The right connection in this sense would have been :
for indeed, and not now. Paul rather passes here from the
spiritual good, which he has always desired to do among the
believers of Eome, to the extension of their church, to which
he hopes he may contribute. Let his work at Corinth and
Ephesus be remembered; why should he not accomplish a

* Piom fraud and holy flattery.

^ The T. R, reads xi^fto^, r/i-a, wiljl) some Mnn. All the Mjj. : rtvx xafirw.

CHAP. I. 13, 14. 147

similar work at Eome ? He means, therefore : " / shall confess
to you my whole mind ; my ambition aims at making some
new conquests even in your city (at Rome)." This is what
he calls gathering some fi^it. The phrase is as modest as
possible. At Corinth and Ephesus he gathered full harvests ;
at Eome, where the church already exists, he will merely add
some handfuls of ears to the sheaves already reaped by others.
Kapirov e'xeiv, literally, to have fruit, does not here signify :
to hear fruit, as if Paul were comparing himself to a tree.
The K T. has other and more common terms for this idea :
KapTTov (pepetv, iroielv, SiBovai. The meaning is rather to
secure fruit, like a husbandman who garners a harvest. The
two Kal, also, of the Greek text, " also among you, as also
among the other Gentiles," signify respectively : " among you
quite as much as among them ; " and " among them quite as
much as among you." St. Paul remembers what he has suc-
ceeded in doing elsewhere. No reader free from prepossession
will fail to see here the evident proof of the Gentile origin of
the great majority of the Christians of Eome. To understand
by edvTj, nations in general, including the Jews as well, is not
only contrary to the uniform sense of the word (see ver. 5), but
also to the subdivision into Greeks and Barbarians given in
the following verse : for the Jews, according to Paul's judg-
ment, evidently did not belong to either of these two classes.
If he had thought of the Jews in this place, he must have
used the classification of ver. 1^ : to the Jews and Greeks.

Ver. 14. No connecting particle. Such is always the indi-
cation of a feeling which as it rises is under the necessity of
reaffirming itself with increasing energy : " Yea, I feel that I
owe myself to all that is called Gentile." The first division,
into Greeks and Barharians, bears on the language, and thereby
on the nationality ; the second, into wise and unwise, on the
degree of culture. It may be asked in what category did Paul
place the Eomans themselves. As to the first of these two
classifications, it is obvious that he cannot help ranking among
the Greeks those to whom he is writing at the very time in the
Greek language. The Eomans, from the most ancient times,
had received their culture from the Greek colonies established
in Italy. So Cicero, in a well-known passage of the De finihus
(iL 15), conjoins Grcecia and Italia, and contrasts them with

145 PREFACE.

Barbaria. As to the second contrast, it is possible that Paul
regards the immense population of Eome, composed of elements
so various, as falling into the two classes mentioned. What
matters ? All those individuals, of whatever category, Paul
regards as his creditors. He owes them his life, his person,
in vii'tue of the grace bestowed on him and of the office
which he has received (ver. 5). The emotion excited by
this thought is what has caused the asyndeton^ between
vv. 13 and 14.

Ver. 15. " So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the
gospel to you that are at Borne * also." — Of the three explanations
by which it has been sought to account for the grammatical
construction of this verse, the simplest seems to me to be that
which gives a restricting sense to the words Kar e^e : for my
part, that is to say : " so far as depends on me, so far as ex-
ternal circumstances shall not thwart my desire," and which
takes TO irpoOvfiov as a paraphrase of the substantive irpoOv^la ;
the meaning is : " So far as I am concerned, the liveliest desire
prevails in me to " . . . Such is the explanation of Eritzsche,
Eeiche, Philippi. De Wette and Meyer prefer to join to with
Kar ifie in the same sense as we have just given to Kar ifie
alone, and to take irpodv/jLov as the subject : " As far as I am
concerned, there is an eagerness to " . . . Some have made
TO KaT ifjue a periphrasis for ijco, as* the subject of the pro-
position, and taken rrrpodvfiov as a predicate : '' My personal
disposition is eagerness to announce to you" . . . The mean-
ing is nearly the same whichever of the three explanations be
adopted. The ovrco, thus, very obviously stands as a conclud-
ing particle. This eagerness to preach at Eome no less than
elsewhere is the consequence of that debt to all which he feels
lying upon him. The meaning: likewise, would not be so
suitable. The word to evangelize, literally, to proclaim good
news, seems to be inapplicable to a church already founded.
But we have just seen that the apostle has here in view the
extension of the church by preaching to the unbelieving popu-
lation around it. Hence the use of the word. We must
therefore take the words : you that are at Borne, in a wider
sense. It is not merely the members of the church who are
denoted by it, but the whole population of the great city
' Jhe absence of any logical particle. * G g omit roig sv Pw^n.

CHAP. I. 15. 149

represented in the eyes of Paul by his readers. As Hofmann
says : " He is here considering the members of the church as
Eomans, not as Christians." The words at Borne are omitted
by Codex G, as in ver. 7. Volkmar explains their rejection by
the fact that some evangelistarium (a collection of the peri-
copes intended for public reading) suppressed them to preserve
the universal character of our Epistle. This explanation comes
to the same as that which we have given on ver. 7.

Here for the present the letter closes and the treatise begins.
The first proposition of ver. 16 : / am not ashamed of the
gospel, is the transition from the one to the other. For the
words : / am not ashamed, are intended to remove a suspicion
which might be raised against the profession Paul has just
made of eagerness to preach at Eome ; they thus belong to
the letter. And, on the other hand, the word gospel sums up
the whole contents of the didactic treatise which immediately
opens. It is impossible to see in this first proposition of ver.
16 anything else than a transition, or to bring out of it, as
Hofmann attempts, the statement of the object af the whole
Epistle.

THE TREATISE.

I. 16 -XV. 13.

THIRD PASSAGE (I. 16, 17).
The Statement of the Subject.

Ver. 16. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel:^ for it is a
'poiver of God unto salvation to every one that helievcth; to the
Jew first} and also to the Ch^eekJ' — The long delays which had
prevented the apostle's visit to Eome did not arise, as might
have been thought, from some secret anxiety or fear that he
might not be able to sustain honourably the part of preacher
of the word on this stage. In the very contents of the
gospel there are a grandeur and a power which lift the man
who is charged with it above feelings of this kind. He may
indeed be filled with fear and trembling when he is delivering
such a message, 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; but the very nature of the
message restores him, and gives him entire boldness wherever
he presents himself. In what follows the apostle seems to
say : " And I now proceed to prove this to you by expounding
in writing that gospel which I would have wished to proclaim
with the living voice in the midst of you." When he says :
/ am not ashamed, Paul does not seem to have in view the
opprobrium attached to the preaching of the Crucified One ;
he would have brought out this particular more distinctly.
Comp. 1 Cor. i. 18, 23. The complement tov XpiaTov,
of Christ, which is found in the T. E. along with the Byz.
MSS., is certainly unauthentic; for it is wanting in the

* The T. R. here reads the words rov Xpitrrov {of Christ), with K L P and
theMnn. The words are wanting in all the other Mjj., in Ital and Pesch. and
in some Mnn.

*The word ^puro* is omitted in B G g ; according to Tertullian, it w«a
wanting in Marcion.

CHAP. I. 16. 151

documents of the other two families, in the ancient Latin and
Syriac Vss., and even in a large number of Mnn. The word
gospel denotes here, as in vv. 1 and 9, not the matter, but
the act of preaching ; Calvin himself says : De vocali 'prmdica-
tione Jiic loquitur. And why is the apostle not ashamed of
such a proclamation ? Because it is the mighty arm of God
rescuing the world from perdition, and bringing it salvation.
Mankind are, as it were, at the bottom of an abyss; the
preaching of the gospel is the power from above which raises
out of it. No one need blush at being the instrument of
such a force. The omission of the article before the word
SvvafiL<;, power, serves to bring out the character of the action
rather than the action itself. Hofmann says: " Power , for
the gospel can do something ; power of God, for it can do all
it promises." The word aoyTrjpla, salvation, contains two
ideas : on the one side, deliverance from an evil, perdition ;
on the other, communication of a blessing, eternal life in com-
munion with God. The possession of these two privileges is
man's health (a-ooTrjpla, from the adjective a-m, safe and sound).
The life of God in the soul of man, such is the normal state
of the latter. The preposition et?, to, or in (salvation), denotes
not only the purpose of the divine work, but its immediate
and certain result, wherever the human condition is fulfilled.
This condition is faith to every one that helieveth. The word
every one expresses the universal efficacy of the remedy, and
the word helieveth, its entire freencss. Such are the two
fundamental characteristics of the Christian salvation, especi-
ally as preached by Paul ; and they are so closely connected
that, strictly speaking, they form only one. Salvation would
not be for all, if it demanded from man anything else than
faith. To make work or merit a condition in the least degree,
would be to exclude certain individuals. Its universal des-
tination thus rests on its entire freeness at the time when
man is called to enter into it. The apostle adds to the word
believing the article rS, the, which cannot be rendered in French
by the tout (all) ; the word means each individual, provided
he believes. As the offer is universal, so the act of faith
by which man accepts is individual; comp. John iii. 16.
The faith of which the apostle speaks is nothing else than
the simple acceptance of the salvation ofCered in preaching.

152 THE SUMMARY.

It is premature to put in this moral act all that will after-
wards flow from it when faith shall be in possession of its
object. This is what is done by Eeuss and Sabatier, when
chey define it respectively : " A personal, inward, mystical
union between man and Christ the Saviour " {Ep. paulin. II.
p. 43) ; and : " the destruction of sin in us, the inward creation
of the divine life " (L'ap. Paul, p. 265). This is to make the
effect the cause. Faith, in Paul's sense, is something extremely
simple, such that it does not in the least impair the freeness of
salvation. God says : I give thee ; the heart answers : I accept ;
such is faith. The act is thus a receptivity, but an active
receptivity. It brings nothing, but it takes what God gives ;
as was admirably said by a poor Bechuana : " It is the hand of
the heart." In this act the entire human personality takes
part : the understanding discerning the blessing offered in the
divine promise, the will aspiring after it, and the confidence
of the heart giving itself up to the promise, and so securing
the promised blessing. The preaching of free salvation is the
act by which God lays hold of man, faith is the act by which
man lets himself be laid hold of. Thus, instead of God's ancient
people who were recruited by birth and Abrahamic descent,
Paul sees a new people arising, formed of all the individuals
who perform the personal act of faith, whatever the nation to
which they belong. To give pointed expression to tliis last
feature, he recalls the ancient distinction which had till then
divided mankind into two rival religious societies, Jews and
Gentiles, and declares this distinction abolished. He says:
to the Jew first, and to the Greek. In this context the word
Greek has a wider sense than in ver. 14; for there it was
opposed to Barbarian. It therefore designated only a pa7't of
Gentile humanity. Here, where it is used in opposition to
Jew, it includes the whole Gentile world. Greeks were
indeed the Mite of the Gentiles, and might be regarded as
representing the Gentiles in general; comp. 1 Cor. i. 22-24.
This difference in the extension of the name Greeks arises
from the fact that in ver. 14 the only matter in question was
PauVs ministry, the domain of which was subdivided into
civilised Gentiles (Greeks) and barbarian Gentiles ; while here
the matter in question is the gospel's sphere of action in
general, a sphere to which the whole of mankind belong {Jews

CHAP. I. le. 153

and Gentiles). The word irpoyrov, first, should not be inter-
preted, as some think, in the sense of principally. It would
be false to say that salvation is intended for the Jews in
'preference to the Greeks. Paul has in view the right of
'priority in time which belonged to Israel as the result of its
whole history. As to this right, God had recognised it by
making Jesus to be born in the midst of this people ; Jesus
had respected it by confining Himself during His earthly life
to gathering together the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and
by commanding His apostles to begin the evangelization of
the world with Jerusalem and Judea, Acts i. 8 ; Peter and the
Twelve remained strictly faithful to it, as is proved by the
first part of the Acts, chaps. ii.-xii. ; and Paul himself had
uniformly done homage to it by beginning the preaching of
the gospel, in every Gentile city to which he came as an
apostle, in the synagogue. And, indeed, this right of priority
rested on the destination of Israel to become itself the apostle
of the Gentiles in the midst of whom they lived. It was for
Jewish believers to convert the world. For this end they
must needs be the first to be evangelized. The word irpSyjov
{first) is wanting in the Vat. and the Boerner Cod. (Greek
and Latin). We know from Tertullian that it was wanting
also in Marcion. The omission of the word in the latter is
easily explained ; he rejected it simply because it overturned
his system. Its rejection in the two MSS. B and G is more
difficult to explain. Volkmar holds that Paul might ascribe
a priority to the Jews in relation to judgment, as he does
ii. 9, but not in connection with salvation; the irpcoTov of
ii. 10 he therefore holds to be an interpolation from ii. 9,
and that of our ver. 16, a second interpolation from ii. 10.
An ingenious combination, intended to make the apostle the
relentless enemy of Judaism, agreeably to Baur's system,
but belied by the missionary practice of Paul, which is
perfectly in keeping with our first and with that of iL 10.
The omission must be due to the carelessness of the
copyist, the simple form : to the Jew and to the Greek (with-
out the word first), naturally suggesting itself. While paying
homage to the historical rig. it of the Jewish people, Paul
did not, however, intend to restore particularism. By the
T€ Kal, as well as, he forcibly maintains the radical religious

154 THE SUMMARY.

equality already proclaimed in the words: to every one that
helievetJi.

It concerns the apostle now to explain how the gospel can
really be the salvation of the world offered to all believers.
Such is the object of ver. 17. The gospel is salvation, because
it offers the righteousness of God.

Ver. 1 7. " For therein is the righteousness of God revealed
from faith to faith : as it is written, But the just shall live by
faith." — The first part of this verse is a repetition of ver. 16,
in more precise language. Paul explains how this power unto
salvation, which should save the believer, acts : it justifies him.
Such is the fundamental idea of the Epistle.

The term righteousness of God cannot here mean, as it
sometimes does, for example, iii. 5 and 25, an attribute of
God, whether His perfect moral purity, or His retributive
justice. Before the gospel this perfection was already dis-
tinctly revealed by the law ; and the prophetic words which
Paul immediately quotes : " The just shall live by faith,"
prove that in his view this justice of God is a condition of
man, not a divine attribute.

In what does this state consist ? The term BcKacocrvvr},
justice, strictly designates the moral position of a man who has
fully met all his obligations (comp. vi. 13, 16; Eph. v. 9;
Matt. V. 1 7, etc.). Only here the complement : of God, and
the expression : is revealed by the gospel, lead us to give the
term a more particular sense : the relation to God in which a
man would naturally be placed by his righteousness, if he
were righteous, and which God bestows on him of grace on
account of his faith. Two explanations of this notion meet
us. They are well stated by Calvin : " Some think that
righteousness consists not merely in the f7xe pardon of sins,
but partly also in the grace of regeneyrUion.'' " For my part,"
he adds, " I take the meaning to be that we are restored to
life, because God freely reconciles us to Himself." On the one
hand, therefore, an inward regeneration on the ground of which
God pardons ; on the other, a free reconciliation on the ground
of which God regenerates. In the former case : God acting
first as Spirit to deposit in the soul the germ of the new life
(to render man effectually just, at least virtually), and after-
wards as judge to pardon ; in the latter, God acting first as

CHAP. I. 17. 155

judge to pardon {to declare man just), and afterwards as Spirit
to quicken and sanctify.

The first of these views is that of the Catholic Church,
formulated by the Council of Trent/ and professed by a num-
ber of Protestant theologians (among the earlier, Osiander ;
Beck, in our day). It is the point of view defended by Eeuss
and Sabatier. The latter defines justification : " the creation
of spiritual life." ^ The second notion is that round which
the Protestant churches in general have rallied. It was the
soul of Luther's religious life ; and it is still the centre of
doctrinal teaching in the church which claims the name of
this Eeformer. We have not here to treat the subject from a
dogmatical or moral point of view. We ask ourselves this one
thing : Which of the two views was the apostle's, and best
explains his words ?

In our verse the verb reveals itself, or is revealed, applies
more naturally to a righteousness which is offered, and which
God attributes to man in consequence of a declaration, than
to a righteousness which is communicated internally by the
gift of the Spirit. The instrument of appropriation constantly
insisted on by the apostle, faith, also corresponds better
to the acceptance of a promise than to the acceptance of a
real communication. The contrast between the two evidently
parallel phrases : ''The righteousness of God is revealed^' ver. 17,
and : " The wrath of God is revealed,'' ver. 1 8, leads us equally
to regard the righteousness of God as a state of things which
He founds in His capacity of judge, rather than a new life
conveyed by His Spirit. The opposite of the new life is not
the wrath of the judge, but the sin of man. — In iv. 3, Paul
justifies his doctrine of the righteousness of God by the words
of Moses : " Now Abraham believed God, and it was counted
to him for righteousness" (counted as the equivalent of a
righteous and irreproachable life). The idea of counting or
imputing applies better to a sentence which ascribes than to
an act of real communication. — In the same chapter, vv. 7, 8,

^ Sess. vi. c. 7 : [Justificatio] non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sancti-
ficatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratise.

2 UapCtre Paul, p. 261. Let it be remembered that the author whom we
are quoting defined faith (p. 265) " the inward creation of the divine life." Does
Paul's language allow us to give a definition identically the same of faith and
justification ?

156 THE SUMMARY.

the notion of the righteousness of God is explained by the
terms pardon and non-imputation of sin. There is evidently
no question there of positive communication, of a gift of
spiritual life. — In chap. v. 9, 10, Paul contrasts with justifi-
cation by the hlood of Christ and with reconciliation by His
death, as the foundation of salvation, deliverance from wrath
(in the day of judgment), by the communication of His life, as
the consummation of salvation. Unless we are to convert the
copestone into the basis, we must put justification by the
blood first, and the communication of life by the Spirit second ;
the one, as the condition of entrance into the state of salvation
here below ; the other, as the condition of entrance into the
state of glory above. — The very structure of the Epistle to
the Eomans forbids us to entertain a doubt as to the apostle's
view. If the communication of spiritual life were, in his
judgment, the condition of pardon, he must have begun his
Epistle with chaps. vi.-viii., which treat of the destruction of
sin and of the gift of the new life, and not with the long
passage, i. 18-v. 21, which refers wholly to the removal of
condemnation, and to the conditions, objective and subjective,
of reconciliation. — Finally, it is contrary to the fundamental
principle of Paul's gospel, entire freeness of salvation, to put
regeneration in any degree whatever as the basis of recon-
ciliation and pardon. It is to make the effect the cause, and
the cause the effect. According to St. Paul, God does not
declare man righteous after having made him righteous ; He
does not make him righteous till He has first declared him
righteous. The whole Epistle to the Eomans excludes the
first of these two principles (which is no other than the
Judaizing principle ever throwing man back on himself), and
goes to establish the second (the evangelical principle which
detaches man radically from himself and throws him on God)}
See on the transition from chap. v. to chap. vi. — We add here,
as a necessary supplement, a study on the meaning of the
word hiKaLovv, to justify.

• It is clear what we must think of M. Sabatier's vehement attack on the
doctrine of imputed (or, as he calls it, forensic) righteousness : " Paul would not
have had words severe enough to blast so gross an interpretation of his meaning "
(p. 260) ! — Holsteu himself cannot avo^ doing homage to exegetical truth.
He says: " Kightcousness is an objective state, in which man is placed by a
diviuc act."

CHAP. I. 17. 15'>

Eoxursus on the use of the ivord drxaiovv, to justify} — The
question is this : Are we to uiiderstaiicl the word Itxaiovv, to
justify, in the sense of making just or declaring just ?

Verbs in ow have sometimes the meaning of making : driXoca,
to make clear; dovXou, to make a slave; Tv(pX6u, to make blind.
But this use of the termination ou does not form the rule ; this
is seen in the verbs ^»j/a/ow, to jpunish ; [mksHu, to hire ; Xovrpou,
to hathe ; [/.aanyou, to scourge.

As to dixaioot), there is not an example in the whole of classic
literature where it signifies : to make just. With accusative of
things it signifies : to think right. The following are examples :
Thucyd. ii. 6 : " Thinking it right (dixaiouvTsg) to return to the
Lacedemonians what these had done them." iv. 26 : " He will
not /o?'m a just idea of the thing (ovx op&ug dixaiuiesi)." Herod.
i. 133 : " They think it good (dixaisvGi) to load the table." Justin,
Cohort, ad Gentil. (ii. 46, ed. Otto) : " When he thought good
Qdixaiuffs) to bring the Jews out of Egypt." Finally, in ecclesi-
astical language : " It has been found good (^so/xa/wra/) by the
holy Council."

With accusative of persons this verb signifies : to treat justly^
and most frequently sensu malo, to condemn, punish. Aristotle,
in Nicom. v. 9, contrasts udixsTadai, to he treated unjustly, with
huaioZsQcii, to he treated according to justice. Eschylus, Agam.
391-393, says of Paris, that he has no right to complain if he is
fudged unfavourably {pixai(akig) ; let him reap what is his due.
Thucyd. iii. 40: " You will condemn your own selves (duatu)(fsffds)."
Herod, i. 100 : " When any one had committed a crime, Dejoces
sent for him and punished him (sdixahv)." On occasion of the
vengeance which Cambyses wreaked on the Egyptian priests,
Herodotus says (iii. 29) : " And the priests were punished
(sS/xa/gDvro)." So we find in Dion Cassius : dtxaiovv ; and in
Elian : dixaiovv ru davdr(f), in the sense of punishing with death.

Thus profane usage is obvious : to think just, or treat justly
(most frequently by condemning or punishing) ; in both cases
establishing the right by a sentence, never by communicating
justice. Hence it follows that, of the two meanings of the word
we are examining, that which comes nearest classical usage is
undoubtedly to declare, and not to make just.

But the meaning of the verb dixaiovv, to justify, in the New
Testament, depends less on profane Greek than on the use of
the Old Testament, both in the original Hebrew and in the

^ To avoid endless quotations, I refer once for all to Morison's dissertation in
his Commentary on Eom. iii. in connection with the word ^tKatuH^tTai, ver. 20
(pp. 161-200). I do not think that, in all theology has produced on this subject,
there is anything better thought out or more complete. The following study
is little more than an extract from it

168 THE SUMMAEY.

version of the LXX. This, therefore, is what we have, above
all, to examine. To the term justify there correspond in Hebrew
the Piel and Hiphil of tsadak, to he just. The Piel tsiddek, in
the five cases where it is used, signifies not to make just
inwardly, but to show or declare just.^ The Hiphil hits' dik
appears twelve times ; * in eleven cases the meaning to justify
iudicially is indisputable ; for example, Ex. xxiii. 7 : " For I
will not justify the wicked," certainly means : I will not declare
the wicked /iis^ ; and not : I will not make him just inwardly ;
Prov. xvii. 15 : "He that justifleth the wicked, and he that
condemneth the just, are abomination to the Lord." Any other
meaning than that of declaring just is absurd. So with the
others. In the twelfth passage only, Dan. xii. 3, the word may
be understood either in the sense of making just, or of pre-
senting as just. (The LXX. translate differently altogether, and
without using the word htKaioZv)

It is on this almost uniform meaning of the verb tsadak in
the Piel and Hiphil that Paul and the other writers of the New
Testament founded their use of the word 5/xa/oDv, to justify.
For this word 5/xa/oDv is that by which the Hebrew word was
constantly rendered by the LXX.^

The use of the word hiKmovv, to justify, in the New Testament,
appears chiefly from the following passages : — Eom. ii. 13 : the
subject is the last judgment ; then, one is not made, but recog-
nised and declared just ; iii. 4 : God is the subject ; God is not
viade, but recognised or declared just by man ; iii. 20 : to be
justified before God cannot signify : to be made just hy God ;
the phrase hefore God implies the judicial sense ; iv. 2 : to be
justified ly works ; this phrase has no meaning except in the
judicial sense of the v^'ord jicstify ; 1 Cor. iv. 4: Paul is not
conscious of any unfaithfulness ; but for all that he is not yet
justified; a case where it is impossible to apply any other
meaning than the judicial. The reader will do well to consult
also Matt. xi. 19 and Luke vii. 35 (" wisdom [God's] \s> justified
of her children ") ; Luke vii. 29 (the publicans justified God) ;
Matt. xii. 37 (" by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy

^ Job xxxii. 2, xxxiii. 32 ; Jer. iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvi. 51, 52.

* Ex. xxiii. 7 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; 2 Sam. xv. 4 ; 1 Kings viii. 32 ; 2 Chron. vi.
23 ; Job xxvii. 5 ; Ps. Ixxxii. 3 ; Prov. xvii. 15 ; Isa. i. 8, v. 23, liii. 11 ; Dan.
xii. 3.

* The LXX. sometimes use 'htKxtoZv where some other Hebrew verb occurs, and
in these cases eight times in the strictly judicial sense ; seven times, as Morison
lays, in a semi-judicial sense. Once they use it in the sense of purifying. Ps.
Ixxiii. 13 : ** I have cleansed (ziqqiti) my heart {i^ncet'aira <riiv xap'^ieiv fiov)." This
is the only case where liKctniiv has this meaning throughout the whole version of
Uie LXX.

CHAP. I. 17. 169

words thou slialt be condemned ") ; Luke x. 29 (" he, wishing to
justify himself"), xvi. 15 ("ye are they who justify yourselves''),
xviii. 14 (" the justified publican ") ; Acts xiii. 39 (" to be
justified from the things from which they could not have been
justified by the law") ; Jas. ii. 21, 24, 25 ("to be justified hy
works")}

There is not a single one of these passages where the idea of
an inward communication of righteousness would be suitable.
In favour of this meaning the words, 1 Cor. vi. 11, have some-
times been quoted. If the passage be carefully examined in its
context, vi. 1-10, it will clearly appear that it forms no excep-
tion to the constant usage of the New Testament, as it has been
established by the collective showing of the passages just
quoted.

That from a dogmatic point of view this notion of justifi-
cation should be rejected as too external and forensic, we can
understand,* though we are convinced that thereby the very
sinews of the gospel are destroyed. But that, exegetically
speaking, there can possibly be two ways of explaining the
apostle's view, is what surprises us.

The notion of the righteousness of God, according to Paul,
embraces two bestowals of grace : man treated — (1) as if he
had never committed any evil ; (2) as if he had always
accomplished all the good God could expect from him. The
sentence of justification which puts man in this privileged
state in relation to God is the hiKaicoav^;, the act of justification.
In virtue of this act " man has henceforth," as Hofmann says,
" the righteousness of God for him, and not against him."

What is the meamng of the genitive Seov, of God, in the
phrase : righteousness of God ? Luther's interpretation, main-
tained by Philippi, is well known : a righteousness valid before
God (iii. 20; GaL iii. 11). But this meaning of the com-
plement is very forced. Baur makes it a genitive of quality :
a righteousness agreeable to the nature of God. Is it not
simpler to take it as a genitive of origin : a justice which has
God Himself for its author ? We are led to this sense also

^ To complete the list we have only to quote Kom. vi. 7, viii. 30, 33 ; Gal. ii.
16, 17, iii. 8, 11, 24, v. 4. The only case where discussion could arise is Kom.
vi. 7, where "^ixetiovv, in any case, cannot signify to make jicst inwardly (see on
the passage).

^ On the judicial point of view in general, and the notion of right as applied
to God, see on iii. 25.

160 THE SUMMARY.

by the parallel expressions : " The righteousness that cometh
from God " (jj eic Qeov hiKaioavvri), Phil. iii. 9 ; " the righteousness
of God " (t) tov Qeov Si/caiocrvvj]) opposed to our own righteous-
ness, Eom. X. 3. Of course a righteousness of which God is
the author must correspond to His essence (Baur), and be
accepted by Him (Luther).

The word dTroKaXvirreTat, is revealed or reveals itself, denotes
the act whereby a thing hitherto veiled now bursts into the
light ; compare the parallel but different expression, 7re(f)ave-
pcorac, has teen manifested, iii. 21. The present, is being
revealed, is explained here by the regimen in it, iv avrw —
that is to say, in the gospel. This substantive should still be
taken in the active sense which we have given it : the act of
evangelical preaching. It is by this proclamation that the
righteousness of God is daily revealed to the world. — The
expression e/c 7rtVTe<»9 et? irlcrTuv, from faith to faith, has been
interpreted very variously. Most frequently it has been
thought to signify the idea of the progress which takes place
in faith itself, and in this sense it has been translated : from
faith on to faith. This progress has been applied by some
Fathers (Tert., Origen, Chrysost.) to the transition from faith
in the Old Testament to faith as it exists in the New. But
there is nothing here to indicate a comparison between the
old and new dispensations. The Eeformers have taken the
progress of faith to be in the heart of the individual believer.
His faith, weak at first, grows stronger and stronger. Calvin :
Quotidianum in singulis fidelibus progressum notat. So also
thought Luther and Melanchthon ; Schaff : " Assimilation by
faith should be continually renewed." But the phrase thus
understood does not in the least correspond with the verb is
revealed ; and, what is graver still, this idea is utterly out of
place in the context. A notion so special and secondary as
that of the progress which takes place in faith is inappropriate
in a summary which admits only of the fundamental ideas being
indicated. It would even be opposed to the apostle's aim to
connect the attainment of righteousness with this objective
progress of the believer in faith. It is merely as a curiosity
of exposition that we mention the view of those who under-
stand the words thus : by faith in faith — that is to say, in
the faithfulness of God (iii. 3). Paul's real view is certainly

CHAP. L 17. 161

this : the righteousness of God is revealed by means of the
preaching of the gospel as arising from faith (eK Tr/o-reo)?), in
this sense, that it is nothing else than faith itself reckoned to
man as righteousness. The e/c, strictly speaking, out of which
we can only render by means of the preposition hy, expresses
origin. This regimen is joined to the verb is revealed by the
phrase understood : as being. This righteousness of faith is
revealed at the same time as being for faith, ek ttlo-tiv. This
second regimen signifies that the instrument by which each
individual must personally appropriate such a righteousness is
likewise faith. To make this form of expression clear, we
have only to state the opposite one : Our own righteousness is
a righteousness of works and for works — that is to say, a
righteousness arising from works done and revealed with a
view to works to be done. Our formula is the direct opposite
of that which described legal righteousness. To be exact, we
need not say that to faith here is equivalent to : to the believer.
Paul is not concerned with the person appropriating, but
solely with the instrument of appropriation, and his view in
conjoining these two qualifying clauses was simply to say :
that in this righteousness faith is everything, absolutely every-
thing ; in essence it is faith itseK ; and each one appropriates
it by faith. These two qualifying clauses meet us in a some-
what different form in other passages ; iii. 22 : " The right-
eousness of God through faith in Christ unto (and upon) all
them that believe ;" Gal. iii. 22 : "That the promise by faith
of Jesus may be given to them that believe ; " Phil. iii. 9 :
" Having the righteousness which is by faith in Christ, the
righteousness of God unto faith." We need not, however,
paraphrase the words unto faith, with some commentators, in
the sense : to produce faith. The ek, unto, seems to us to
indicate merely the destination. It is a righteousness of faith
offered to faith. All it has to do is to take possession of it.
Of course we must not make a merit of faith. What gives
it its justifying value is its object, without which it would
remain a barren aspiration. But the object laid hold of could
have no effect on man without the active apprehension, which
is faith.

The apostle is so convinced of the unity which prevails
between the old and new covenants, that he cannot assert one

GODET. T. KOM. I.

162 THE SUMMARY.

of the great truths of the gospel without quoting a passage
from the Old Testament in its support. He has just stated
the theine of his Epistle ; now comes what we may call the
text: it is a passage from Habakkuk (ii. 4), which had evi-
dently played an important part in his inner life, as it did
decisively in the life of Luther. He quotes it also Gal. iii. 1 1
(comp. X. 37). With all that prides itself on its own strength,
whether in the case of foreign conquerors or in Israel itself,
the prophet contrasts the humble Israelite who puts his co?i-
fldence in God alone. The former wiU perish; the latter,
who alone is righteovs in the eyes of God, sJiall live. The
Hebrew word which we translate by faith, emounah, comes
from the verb aman, to be firm ; whence in the Hiphil : to
rest on, to he confident in. In the Hebrew it is : his faith
{emounatho) ; but the LXX. have translated as if they had
found emounathi, my faith (that of God), which might signify
either my faithfulness, or faith in me. What the translators
thought is of small importance. Paul evidently goes back to
<5he original text, and quotes exactly when he says : " his
faith," the faith of the believer in his God. In the Hebrew
text it is agreed by all that the words hy his faith are de-
pendent on the verb shall live, and not on the word the just.
But from Theodore Beza onwards, very many commentators
think that Paul makes this subordinate clause dependent on
the word the just : " Tlie just hy faith shall Kve." This mean-
ing really seems to suit the context more exactly, the general
idea being that righteousness (not life) comes by faith. This
correspondence is, however, only apparent ; for Paul's saying,
thus understood, would, as Oltramare acutely observes, put in
contrast the just hy faith, who shall live, and the just hy
works, who shall not live. But such a thoui^ht would be
inadmissible in Paul's view. For he holds that, if one should
succeed in being righteous by his works, he would certainly
live hy them (x. 5). We must therefore translate as in the
Hebrew : The just shall live hy faith ; and the meaning is
this : " the just shall live by faith " (by which he has been
made just). Paul might have said : the sinner shall be saved
by faith. But the sinner, in this case, he calls just by antici-
pation, viewing him in the state of righteousness into which
his faith shall bring him. If he lives by his faith, it is

CHAP. I. 17. 163

obviously because he has been made just by it, since no one
is saved except as being just. The word ^rjaerai, shall live,
embraced in the prophet's view : 1. DeliveraTice from present
«vils (those of the Chaldean invasion), and, in the case of
posterity, deliverance from evils to come; 2. The possession
of divine grace in the enjoyment of the blessings of the Pro-
mised Land. These two notions are, oi course, spiritualized
by Paul They become : deliverance from perdition and the
possession of eternal life. It is the idea of acorrjpla, salva-
tion, ver. 1 6, reproduced. The word shall live will also have its
part to play in the didactic exposition which now begins, and
which will develope the contents of this text. In fact, to the
end of chap. v. the apostle analyzes the idea of the righteous-
ness of faith ; the word shall live serves as a theme to tlie
whole part from chaps. vL-viii., and afterwards, for the practical
development, chaps. xii.-xiv.

The exposition of the righteousness of faith, which begins in
the following verse, comprises three great developments : the
description of universal condemnation, i. 18-ui. 20; that of
universal justification, iii. 21 -v. 11 ; and, following up this
great contrast as its consummation, parallel between Adam and
Christ (v. 12-21). The idea of this entire part, i.-v., taken as
a whole, is therefore : the demonstration of justification hy faith.

FUNDAMENTAL PART.

L 18-V. 21.

The principal subdivision of this part is indicated by the
somewhat amplified repetition of ver. 17, which we shall find
iii 21, 22. There we again meet with the phrase righteous-
ness of God ; the verb was manifested evidently corresponds to
the word is revealed ; and the two secondary clauses : hy faith
of Jesus Christ, and : unto and upon all them that believe, are the
development of the phrase from faith to faith. It follows from
this parallel that the apostle did not mean immediately to
study this great truth of justification by faith ; but he felt the
need of preparing the way for this exposition by laying bare

164 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

in human life the reasons for this so extraordinary and appa-
rently abnormal mode of salvation. Such, indeed, is the
subject of the first section, i. 18-iii. 20 : If the gospel reveals
the righteousness of God, it is because there is another reve-
lation, that of the wrath of God, and because this latter^
unless mankind be destined to perish, requires the former.

FIEST SECTION (1. 18-111. 20).

THE WRATH OF GOD RESTING ON THE WHOLE WORLD.

In chap, i., from ver. 18, St. Paul is undoubtedly describe
ing the miserable state of the Gentile world. From the begin-
ning of chap. ii. he addresses a personage who very severely
judges the Gentile abominations just described by Paul, and
who evidently represents a wholly different portion of man-
kind. At ver. 17 he apostrophizes this personage by his
name : it is the Jew ; and he demonstrates to him that he also
is under the burden of wrath. Hence it follows that the first
piece of this section goes to the end of chap, i., and has for
its subject : the need of salvation demonstrated by the state
of the contemporary Gentile world.

FOURTH PASSAGE (I. 18-32).
The Wrath of God on the Gentiles,

According to Paul's usual style, the first verse contains^
summarily all the ideas developed in the following piece.
The study of the verse will thus be an analysis by anticipa-
tion of the whole passage.

Ver. 18. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who repress
the truth unrighteously." — The transition from ver. 17 to ver.
18, indicated hj for, can only be this : There is a revelation
of righteousness by the gospel, because there is a revelation of
wi-ath on the whole world. The former is necessary to save
the world (comp. acoTrjpla, salvation, ver. 16) from the conse-
quences of the latter. — From the notion of wrath, when it is

CHAP. I. 18. 165

applied to God, we must of course remove all that poUutea
human wrath, personal resentment, the moral perturbation
which give?, to the manifestations of indignation the character
of revenge. In God, who is the living Good, wrath appears as
the holy disapprobation of evil, and the firm resolve to destroy
it. But it is false to say, as is often done, that this divine
emotion applies only to the evil and not to the evil-doer. In
measure as the latter ceases to oppose the evil and volun-
tarily identifies himself with it, he himself becomes the object
of wrath and all its consequences.^ The absence of the
article before the word opyr), wrath, brings into prominence
the category rather than the thing itself : manifestation there
is, whose character is that of wrath, not of love. — This mani-
festation proceeds from heaven. Heaven here does not denote
the atmospheric or stellar heaven ; the term is the emble-
matical expression for the invisible residence of God, the seat
of perfect order, whence emanates every manifestation of
righteousness on the earth, every victorious struggle of good
against evil. The visible heavens, the regularity of the
motion of the stars, the life-like and pure lustre of their fires,
this whole great spectacle has always been to the consciousness
of man the sensible representation of divine order. It is from
this feeling that the prodigal son exclaims : " Father, I have
sinned against heaven and in thy sight." Heaven in this
sense is thus the avenger of all sacred feelings that are out-
raged ; it is as such that it is mentioned here. — By aak^ua,
ungodliness, Paul denotes all failures in the religious sphere ;
and by oZikUl, unrighteousness, all that belong to the moral
domain. Volkmar very well defines the two terms : " Every
denial either of the essence or of the will of God." We shall
again find these two kinds of failures distinguished and de-
veloped in the sequel ; the first, in the refusal of adoration
and thanksgiving, ver. 21 et seq. ; the second, in the refusal
of the knowledge of moral good proceeding from God, ver.
28a. — '^TTt, wpon, against, has here a very hostile sense. —
The apostle does not say : of men, but literally : of men who
repress. As Hofmann says : " The notion men is first pre-
sented indefinitely, then it is defined by the special charac-

^ We refer to aii appendix placed at the end of this verse for an examination
of Ritschl's theory respecting the wrath of God.

166 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

teristic : who repress "... We may already conclude, from
this absence of the article rwv {the) before the substantive,
that Paul is not here thinking of all humanity. And, indeed,
he could not have charged the Jews with holding captive the
truth which had been revealed to them, comp. ii 19-21,
while he proceeds to charge this sin directly on the Gentiles.
We must therefore regard ver. 18 as the theme of chap. i.
only, not that of i and ii. Besides, the wrath of God was
not yet revealed against the Jewish world ; it was only accumu-
lating (ii. 5).— Certainly the apostle, in expressing himself as
he does, does not overlook the varieties in the conduct of the
Gentiles, as will appear in the sequel (ii. 14, 15). He refers
only to the general character of their life. — The truth held
captive is, as vv. 19 and 20 prove, the knovjledge of God as
communicated to the human conscience. To hold it captive^
is to prevent it from diffusing itself in the understanding as a
light, and in the conduct as a holy authority and just rule.
The verb Kari'^eiv, to hold hack, detain, cannot here have the
meaning which some interpreters would give it, to keep, possess,
which the word sometimes has ; for example, 1 Cor. xv. 2 ;

1 Thess. V. 21. In that case we should require to place the
charge brought against the Gentiles not in this verb, but in
the regimen iv ahiKia : " who possess the truth in unrighteous-
ness " (that is, while practising unrighteousness). But the
sequel proves, on the contrary, that the Gentiles had not
kept the deposit of truth which had been confided to them ;
and the simple regimen : in unrigMeousness, would not suffice
to characterize the sin charged against them, and which is the
reason of the divine wrath. We must therefore take the
word Kari'^cLv, to detain, in the sense in which we find it

2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, and Luke iv. 42 : to keep from moving, to
repass, Oltramare : " They hindered it from hreakiiig forth!*
— Some translate the words ev aZiKla-. hy unrighteousness;
they paralyze the truth in them by the love and practice oi evil
But why in this case not again add the notion of ungodliness
to that of unrighteousness ? The literal meaning is, not ly
unrighteousness, but hy way of unrighteousness; this regimen
is therefore taken in the adverbial sense : unrighteously, ill
and wickedly. In reality, is there not perversity in paralyzing
the influence of the truth on one's heart and life ?

CHAP. I. 18. 167

To what manifestations does the apostle allude when he
says that wrath is revealed from heaven ? Does he mean
simply the judgment of conscience, as Ambrose and others,
with Hodge most lately, think ? But here there would be no
patent fact which could be taken as a parallel to the preach-
ing of the gospel (ver. 17). Bellarmine, Grotius, etc., think
that Paul means this preaching itself, and that the words fivm
heaven are synonymous with the eV avrcp, in it (the gospel),
ver. 17. But there is, on the contrary, an obvious antithesis
between these two clauses, and consequently a contrast be-
tween the revelation of righteousness and that of wrath. —
The Greek Fathers, as also Philippi, Ewald, and Ritschl in
our own day, regard this manifestation as that which shall
take place at the last judgnunt. This meaning is incom-
patible with the verb in the present : is revealed ; not that
a present may not, in certain cases, denote the idea of the
action, independently of the time of its realization; so the
very verb which Paul here uses is employed by him 1 Cor.
iii. 13. But there the future (or ideal) sense of the present
is plainly enough shown by all the futures suiToundiag the
verb (yevijo-eraL, SrjXooa-et, BoKLfidcrei,), and the context makes it
sutticiently clear. But in our passage the present is revealed,
ver. 18, corresponds to the similar present of ver. 17, which is
incontrovertibly the actual present It is not possible, in
such a context, to apply the present of ver. 18 otherwise than
to a present fact. Hofmann takes the word is revealed as
referring to that whole multitude of ills which constantly
oppress sinful humanity ; and Pelagius, taking the word froni
heaven literally, found here a special indication of the storms
and tempests which desolate nature. But what is there in
the developments which follow fitted to establish this ex-
planation ? The word is revealed, placed emphatically at the
head of the piece, should propound the theme ; and its mean-
ing is therefore determined by the whole explanation which
follows. — We are thus brought to the natural explanation.
At ver. 24 mention is made of a divine chastisement, that by
which men have been given over to the power of their impure
lusts. This idea is repeated in ver. 26, and a third time in
ver. 28 : " God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Each
time this chastisement, a terrible manifestation of God's

168 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

wrath, is explained by a corresponding sin committed by the
Gentiles. How can we help seeing here, with Meyer, the ex-
planation, given by Paul himself, of his meaning in our verse ?
Thereby the purport of the following description and its relation
to ver. 18 become perfectly clear; the truth is explained in vv.
19, 20 ; it is God's revelation to the conscience of the Gentiles ,
the notion: to repress the, truth, is explained in vv. 21-23
(and 25) ; these are the voluntary errors of paganism ; finally,
the idea of the revelation of divine wrath is developed in w.
24-27 ; these are the unnatural enormities to which God has
given the Gentiles up, and by which He has avenged His out-
raged honour. All the notions of ver. 18 are thus resumed
and developed in their logical order, vv. 1 9-2 7 : such is the
first cycle (the aai^eia, ungodliness). They are resumed and
developed a second time in the same order, but under another
aspect (the ahiKia, unrighteousness), w. 28-32. The meaning
of the words is revealed from heaven, is not therefore doubtful.
It has been objected that the term to reveal always refers to
a supernatural manifestation. We do not deny it; and we
think that Paul regards the monstrous degradation of pagan
populations, which he is about to describe (vv. 24-27 and
29-32), not as a purely natural consequence of their sin, but
as a solemn intervention of God's justice in the history of
mankind, an intervention which he designates by the term
wapaBiBovat,, to give over. — If ver. 18 contains, as we have
said, three principal ideas : 1. The Gentiles knew the truth ;
2. They repelled it ; 3. Por this sin the wrath of God is dis-
played against them, — the first of these ideas is manifestly that
which will form the subject of vv. 19 and 20.

The Wrath of God, according to Ritschl.

In his work. Die Christliche Lehre von der Bechtfertigung und
Versohnung (II. 123-138) (The Christian Doctrine of Justifi-
cation and Reconciliation), Eitschl ascribes to Pharisaism the in-
vention of the idea of retributive justice, and denies its existence
in Holy Scripture. Thus obliged to seek a new meaning for the
notion of the wrath of God, he finds the following : In the Old
Testament the wrath of God has only one aim : to preserve the
divine covenant ; the u^ath of God therefore only denotes the
sudden and violent chastisements with which God smites either
the enemies of the covenant, or those of its members who openly

CHAP. I. 18. 169

violate its fundamental conditions, — in both cases not witli the
view of punishing, but of maintaining here below His work of
grace. In the New Testament the idea is substantially the
same, but modified in its application. The wrath of God cannot
have any other than an eschatological application ; it refers to
the last judgment, in which God will cut off the enemies of
salvation (not to punish them) but to prevent them from hinder-
ing the realization of His kingdom (1 Thess. i. 10 ; Eom. v. 9).
As to our passage, which seems irreconcilable with this notion,
this critic deals with it as follows : — We must wait till ii. 4, 5
to find the development of the idea of the wrath of God,
enunciated in ver. 18. The whole passage, ver. 19-ii. 3, is
devoted to setting forth the sin of the Gentiles, the fact of their
xarz-xiiv rr^v aXri&iiav, holding the truth captive. The description
of chastiseinent (the revelation of wrath) is not developed ti^
after ii. 5 ; now this passage evidently refers to the last judg-
ment. Thus it is that the ingenious theologian succeeds in
harmonizing our passage with his system. But I am afraid
there is more ability than truth in the mode he follows : —
1. Eitschl will not recognise an inward feeling in the wrath of
God, but merely an outward act, a judgment. But why in this
case does Paul use the word wrath, to which he even adds, ii. 8,
the term hfiog, indignation, which denotes the feeling at its
deepest ? 2. We have seen that the present is revealed, forming
an antithesis to the tense of ver. 17, and giving the reason of
it (yap, for), can only denote a time actually present. 3. Is it
not obvious at a glance that the phrase thrice repeated : where-
fore He gave them over (w. 24, 26, 28), describes not the sin of
the Gentiles, but their chastisement ? That appears from the
term give over : to give over is the act of the judge ; to he given
over, the punishment of the culprit. The same follows also
from the wJierefores ; by this word Paul evidently passes each
time from the description of the sin to that of the punishment,
that is to say, to the revelation of wrath. 4. As to ii. 4, 5,
these verses do not begin with a wherefore, as would be neces
sary if the apostle were passing at this part of the text from
the description of sin to that of chastisement. These verses,
on the contrary, are strictly connected with ver. 3, as continuing
the refutation of Jewish security in relation to the last judg-
ment, a refutation begun at ver. 3 with the words : " Thinkest
thou ....?" and carried on to ver. 4 with these : " Or [indeed']
despisest thou ....?'' How can we regard this as the beginning
of a new idea, that of chastisement succeeding that of sin ? For
the examination of the explanation of ver. 32 given by Eitschl,
by which he seeks to justify all the violence he does to the text
of the apostle, we refer to the verse itself.

170 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

With the term ipyri, lurath, before us, applied to the Gentiles
first, ver. 18, and afterwards to the Jews, ii. 5, we are justified
in holding to the notion of that divine feeling as explained by
us, pp. 164, 165.

Vv. 19, 20. "Because that which may he known of God
is manifest in them ; for God hath showed it unto them. For
the invisible things of Him are spiritually seen in His worJcs,
even His eternal power and Godhead ; that tluy may he without
zxcuser — The truth of which Paul wished to speak in ver.
18, was that revelation of God's person and character which
He had given to men. The ^iqti, hecause (for Zm tovto ort,
for the reason that), carries the thought to that which follows
as the reason of what precedes, in contrast to Bio, on account
vf vjhich (ver. 24), which points to what precedes as the
reason for what follows. — The meaning of this Bloti, seeing
that, is as follows : they quenched the truth, seeing that the
truth had been revealed to them (vv. 19, 20), and they changed
it into a lie (vv. 21-23) (25). — The term yvcoaTov, strictly,
what can he known, usually signifies in the New Testament
what is really known (yvcocTTOf;) ; this is its probable meaning
in Luke ii. 44; John xviii. 15 ; Acts i. 19, xvii. 23. Yet
it is not quite certain that the first meaning may not also be
given to the word in some of the passages quoted ; and in
classic Greek it is the most usual sense (see the numerous
examples quoted by Oltramare). What decides in its favour
in our passage is the startling tautology which there w^ould be
in saying : " what is known of the being of God is manifested."
There is therefore ground for preferring here the grammatical
and received meaning in the classics. Paul means : " What
can he known of God without the help of an extraordinary
revelation is clearly manifested within them." A light was
given in their conscience and understanding, and this light
bore on the existence and character of the Divine Being. This
present fact : is manifested, is afterwards traced to its cause,
which is stated by the verb in the aorist : " for God manifested
it to them ; " this state of knowledge was due to a divine act
of revelation. God is not known like an ordinary object;
when He is known, it is He who gives Himself to be known.
The knowledge which beings have of Him is a free act on
His part. Ver. 20 explains the external means by which

CHAP. I. 19, 20. ITI

He wrought this revelation of Himself in the conscience of
men.

Ver. 20. He did so by His works in nature. By the term
ra aopara, the invisible things, the apostle designates the
essence of God, and the manifold attributes which distinguish
it. He sums them up afterwards in these two : eternal power
and Godhead. Power is that which immediately arrests man,
when the spectacle of nature presents itself to his view. In
virtue of the principle of causality innate in his understand-
ing, he forthwith sees in this immense effect the revelation
of a great cause ; and the Almighty is revealed to him. But
this power appears to his heart clothed with certain moral
characteristics, and in particular, wisdom and goodness. He
recognises in the works of this power, in the infinite series of
means and ends which are revealed in them, the undeniable
traces of benevolence and intelligence ; and in virtue of the
principle of finxility, or the notion of end, not less essentially
inherent in his mind, he invests the supreme cause with the
moral attributes which constitute what Paul here calls Godhead,
^etoT779, the sum total of qualities in virtue of which the
creative power can have organized such a world. — The epithet
dtho^, eternal (from del, always), is joined by some with both
substantives ; but power alone needed to be so defined, in
order to contrast it with that host of second causes which are
observed in nature. The latter are the result of anterior
causes. But the first cause, on which this whole series of
causes and effects depends, is eternal, that is to say, self-
causing. The adjective is therefore to be joined only with
the first of the two substantives ; the second required no such
qualification. These invisible things, belonging to the essence
of God, have been made visible, since by the creation of the
universe they have been externally manifested. Toh irocrj/iaa-t
is the dative of instrument: by the works of God in nature;
uTTo, since, indicates that the time oi creation was the point
01 departure for this revelation which lasts still. The complex
phrase voovfieva KadopaTai, are spiritually seen, contains two
intimately connected ideas ; on the one hand, a viewing with
the outward sense ; on the other, an act of intellectual percep-
tion, whereby that which presents itself to the eye becomes
at the same time a revelation to our consciousness. The

172 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

animal sees as man does ; but it lacks the vov<;, understanding
(whence the verb voelv, voov/jueva), whereby man ascends from
the contemplation of the work to that of the worker. These
two simultaneous sights, the one sensible, the other rational,
constitute in man a single act, admirably characterized by the
expression spiritual contemplation, used by the apostle.

We have here a proof of Paul's breadth of mind and heart.
He does not disparage, as the Jews did, and as Christian
science has sometimes done, the value of what has been called
natural theology. And it is certainly not without reason that
Baur {Paulus, II. p. 260) has regarded this passage as laying
the first basis of the apostle's universalism. This same idea
of a universal revelation appears again in Paul's discourses at
Lystra and Athens (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27, 28) ; so also in 1 Cor.
i. 21, and in our own Epistle iii. 29 : "Is God not also the
God of the Gentiles ? " a question w^hich finds its full explana-
tion in the idea of a primordial revelation addressed to all men.

The last words of the verse point out the aim of this universal
revelation : that they may he without excuse. The words are
startling : Could God have revealed Himself to the Gentiles
only to have a reason for the condemnation with which He
visits them ? This idea has seemed so revolting, that it has
been thought necessary to soften the sense of the phrase
eU TO . . . and to translate so that (Osterv.), or : " they are
therefore inexcusable " (Oltram.). It is one great merit of
Meyer's commentaries that he has vigorously withstood this
method of explanation, which arbitrarily weakens the meaning
of certain prepositions and particles used by Paul Had he
wished to say so that, he had at command the regular expression
wo-T€ elvai. And the truth, if his thought is rightly understood,
has nothing so very repulsive about it: in order that, he
means, if after having been thus enlightened, they should fall
into error as to God's existence and character, they may be
without excuse. The first aim of the Creator was to mal^e
Himself known to His creature. But if, through his own
fault, man came to turn away from this light, he should not
be able to accuse God of the darkness into which he had
plunged himself One might translate somewhat coarsely:
that in case of going astray, they might not be able to plead
ignorance as a pretext. In these circumstances there is nothing

CHAP. I. 21. 173

to prevent the in order that from preserving ita natural
meaning.

Vv. 1 9 and 2 0 have explained the word aXTjOeia, the truth,
of ver. 18. Vv. 21-23 develope the phrase: KaTe^evv rrjv
akrjOeiav, to hold this truth captive.

Ver. 21. "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful ; hut became vain in
tJteir imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.'' — The
because that bears on the idea of inexcusableness, which closea
ver. 20, and reproduces the feeling of indignation which had
dictated the eV oZlkicl, hurtfully and maliciously, of ver. 1 8 :
" Yes, inexcusable, because of the fact that" . . . How can
the apostle say of the Gentiles that they knew God ? Is it
a simple possibility to which he is referring ! The words do
not allow this idea. Ver. 19 declared that the light was
really put within them. Paganism itself is the proof that
the human mind had really conceived the notion of God ; for
this notion appears at the root of all the varied forms of
paganism. Only this is what happened: the revelation did
not pass from the passive to the active form. Man confined
himself to receiving it. He did not set himself to grasp it
and to develope it spontaneously. He would have been thus
raised from light to light ; it would have been that way of
knowing God by wisdom of which Paul speaks, 1 Cor. i. 21»
Instead of opening himself to the action of the light, man
withdrew from it his heart and will; instead of developing the
truth, he quenched it. No doubt acts of worship and thanks-
giving addressed to the gods were not wanting in paganism ;
but it is not without meaning that the apostle takes care to-
put the words in front : as God. The task of the heart and
understanding would have been to draw from the contempla-
tion of the work the distinct view of the divine worker, then,,
in the way of adoration, to invest this sublime being with all
the perfections which He displayed in His creation. Such a
course would have been to glorify God as God. For the
highest task of the understanding is to assert God freely, as
He asserts Himself in His revelation. But if this act of
reason failed, the heart at least had another task to fulfil :
to give thanks. Does not a child even say thanks to its
benefactor ? This homage failed like the other. The word-

174 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

ij, or, must be nnderstood here, as it often is, in the sense of : or
at least. The words as God also depend logically on were thank-
ful, which we have not been able to express in French^ [nor in
Encrlish]. — Now man could not remain stationary. Not walk-
ing forwards in the way of active religion, he could only stray
into a false path, that of impiety, spoken of ver. 1 8. Having
neglected to set God before it as the supreme object of its
activity, the understanding was reduced to work in vacuo ;
it rendered itself in a way futile (ifiaTauoOijaav) ; it peopled
the universe with fictions and chimeras. So Paul designates
the vain creations of mythology. The term i/jLaTaLcoOrjaav,
were struck with vanity, evidently alludes to fxaraia, vain
things, which was the name given by the Jews to idols (comp.
Acts xiv. 15; Lev. xvii. 7; Jer. ii. 5; 2 Kings xvii. 15).
The term BcaXoyio-fiol, reasonings, is always taken by the
writers of the New Testament in an unfavourable sense ; it
denotes the unregulated activity of the pov<;, understandi7ig,
in the service of a corrupt heart. The corruption of the heart
is mentioned in the following words : it went side by side
with the errors of reason, of which it is at once the cause and
the effect. The heart, KupBla, is in the New Testament as in
the Old (leh), the central seat of personal life, what we call
feeling {sentiment), that inner power which determines at once
the activity of the understanding and the direction of the will
Destitute of its true object, through its refusal to he thankful
to God as God, the heart of man is filled with inspirations of
darkness ; these are the guilty lusts inspired by the egoistic
love of the creature and self. The epithet aavvero^, without
understanding, is often explained as anticipating what the
heart was to become in this course : " in such a way as to
become foolish." But was there not already something sense-
less in the ingratitude described in ver. 21 ? Thus the want
•of understanding existed from the beginning. In the form of
the first aorist passive itTKorlddrj, was darkened (as well as in
the preceding aorist ifiaTacdoOrjaav), there is expressed the con-
viction of a divine dispensation, though still under the form of
a natural law, whose penal application has fallen on them.

To this first stage, which is rather of an inward kind, there
has succeeded a second and more external one.

' M. Oltramare : *• They neither glorified nor blessed Him as God."

CHAP. I. 22, 23. 175

Vv. 22, 23. ^'Professing themselves to he wise, they "became
fools, and dianged the glory of tlie incorruptible God into the
likeness of the iifnage of corr^Lptible man, and of birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." Futility of thought
has reached the character of folly. What, in fact, is Poly-
theism, except a sort of permanent hallucination, a collective
delirium, or as is so well said by M. Nicolas, a possession on
a great scale ? And this mental disorder rose to a kind of
perfection among the very peoples who, more than others, laid
claim to the glory of wisdom. When he says : professing to
he wise, Paul does not mean to stigmatize ancient philosophy
absolutely ; he only means that all that labour of the sages
did not prevent the most civilised nations, Egyptians, Greeks,
Komans, from being at the same time the most idolatrous
of antiquity. The popular imagination, agreeably served by
priests and poets, did not allow the efforts of the wise to
dissipate this delirium.

When good is omitted, there always comes in its place an
evil committed. As, in respect of the understanding, the
refusal of adoration {they did not glorify) became a vain
labouring of the mind (they became vain), and, finally, complete
estrangement from truth, folly {they became fools) ; so in
respect of the heart, ingratitude was first transformed into
darkness ; and, finally, — such is the last term described ver.
23, — into monstrous and debasing fetishism. The ungrateful
heart did not stop short at not thanking God, it degraded and
dishonoured Him, by changing Him into His opposite.

The glory of God is the splendour which His manifested
perfections cast into the heart of His intelligent creatures ;
hence, a bright image which is to man the ideal of all that
is good. This image had been produced within them. What
did they make of it ? The sequel tells. While holding the
divine person, they wrapped it up, as it were, in the likeness
of its opposite ; it would have been almost better to leave it
in silence, it would not have been so great an affront. The
preposition eV (which corresponds here to the Hebrew 3)
exactly describes this imprisonment of the divine glory in a
form ignoble and grotesque. This meaning seems to us pre-
ferable to that of commentators who, like Meyer, translate ev,
by, which is less natural with a verb such as change. It is

176 JTJSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

simpler to say " change into" than " change ly** The epithet
incorruptible is, as it were, a protest beforehand against this
degradation; we need not then translate, with Oltramare,
immortal. Paul means to say that the glory of God is not
reached by this treatment which it has had to undergo. In
the phrase : the likeness of the image, we should certainly
apply the iirst term to the material likeness, and the second
to the image present to the artist's mind when he conceivegi
the type of God which he is going to represent. The worship
of man especially characterizes Greek and Eoman Polytheism ;
that of the different classes of animals, Egyptian and Bar-
barian paganism. We need only refer to the worship of the bull
Apis, the ibis, the cat, the crocodile, etc., among the Egyptians.

Thus idolatry, according to Paul, is not a progressive stage
reached in the religious thought of mankind, starting from
primeval fetishism. Far from being a first step towards the
goal of Monotheism, Polytheism is on the contrary the result
of degeneracy, an apostasy from the original Monotheism, a
darkening of the understanding and heart, which has terminated
in the grossest fetishism. The history of religions, thoroughly
studied as it is now-a-days, fully justifies Paul's view. It
shows that the present heathen peoples of India and Africa,
far from rising of themselves to a higher religious state, have
only sunk, age after age, and become more and more degraded.
It proves that at the root of all pagan religions and mytho-
logies, there lies an original Monotheism, which is the historical
starting-point in religion for all mankind.^

This statement of the apostle has been regarded as a
reflection of that contained in the Book of Wisdom (comp.
for example, the passages, Wisd. xiii. 1-8 and xiv. 11-20). But
what a difference between the tame and superficial explanation
of idolatry, which the Alexandrian author gives to his readers,
and the profound psychological analysis contained in the pre-
ceding verses of St. Paul ! The comparison brings out exactly
the difference between the penetration of the author enlightened
from above, and that of the ordinary Jew seeking to recon-
struct the great historic fact of idolatry by his own powers.

The apostle has developed the two terms of ver. 18 : truth,

* See the complete demonstration of this fact in the treatise of Pfleiderer,
Jahrbucluir f, prot. TJieoL 1867.

CHAP. I. 24, 25. 177

and- rtpresmKj the truth. After thus presenting, on the one
hand, the divine revelation, and, on the other, the sin of man in
quenching it, it remains to him only to expound the third idea
of his text : the terrible manifestation of God's wrath on that
sin, in which the whole of human impiety was concentrated.

Vv. 24, 25. " Wherefore God also^ gave them up to unclean-
ness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their
oum bodies between themselves : ^ who changed the truth of God
into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature instead of the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." — In these words there
is expressed the feeling of indignation raised in the heart of
the apostle by the thought and view of the treatment to
which God has been subjected by the creature to whom He
revealed Himself so magnificently. The verses have some-
thing of that irapo^crfjLo^, that exasperation of heart, of which
the author of the Acts speaks (xvii. 16) when describing
Paul's impressions during his stay at Athens. This feeling
is expressed forcibly by the two conjunctions hio Kai, where-
fore also. Alq, literally, on account of which, that is to say, of
the sin just described ; this first conjunction refers to the
justice of punishment in general ; the second, Kai, also, brings
out more especially the relation of congruity between the
nature of the punishment and that of the offence. They
sinned, wherefore God punished them ; they sinned by degrad-
ing God, wherefore also God degraded them. This Kai has
been omitted by the Alex. ; a mistake, as is plain, for it
expresses the profoundest idea of the whole piece. No one
would have thought of adding it. The word gave over does
not signify that God impelled them to evil, to punish the evil
which they had already committed. The holiness of God is
opposed to such a sense, and to give over is not to impel. On
the other hand, it is impossible to stop short at the idea of a
simple permission : " God let them give themselves over to
evil." God was not purely passive in the terrible develop-
ment of Gentile corruption. Wherein did His action consist?
He positively withdrew His hand ; He ceased to hold the boat
as it was dragged by the current of the river. This is the

^ i< A B C omit the xa/ after J/e, which is found in the T. R., with D E G K
L P and the most of the Mnn.
2 15 A B C D : i» aurois ; T. R., with E G K L P, the Mnn. : e> iuvto,,.
GODET. M EOM. L

178 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

meaning of the term used by the apostle Acts xiv. 16: "He
suffered the Gentiles to walk in their own ways," by not doing
for them what He never ceased to do for His own people.
It is not a case of simple abstention, it is the positive with-
drawal of a force. Such also is the meaning of the saying,
Gen. VL 3 : " My Spirit shall not always strive with man."
As Meyer says : " The law of history, in virtue of which the
forsaking of God is followed among men by a parallel grow^th
of immorality, is not a purely natural order of things ; the
power of God is active in the execution of this law." If it is
asked how such a mode of action harmonizes with the moral
perfection of God, the answer undoubtedly is, that when man
has reached a certain degree of corruption, he can only be
cured by the very excess of his own corruption ; it is the only
means left of producing what all preceding appeals and punish-
aients failed to effect, the salutary action of repentance. So
it is that at a given moment the father of the prodigal son lets
him go, giving him even his share of goods. The monstrous
and unnatural character of the excesses about to be described
confirms this view.

The two prepositions, eV, through, and eU, to, differ from one
another as the current which bears the barque along, once it
has been detached from the shore, differs from the abyss into
which it is about to be precipitated. Lusts exist in the heart ;
God abandons it to their power, and then begins that fall
which must end in the most degrading impurities. The in-
finitive Tov aTifidt,ea6aL might be translated : to the impurity
which consists in dishonouring. But as the whole passage is
dominated by the idea of the " manifestation of divine wrath,"
it ii5 more natural to give this infinitive the notion of end
or aim : in order to dishonour. It is a condemnation : " You
have dishonoured me ; I give you up to impurity, that you
may dishonour your own selves." Observe the Kal, also, at
the beginning of the verse. The verb arLfid^eaOao is found
in the classics only in the passive sense : to he dishonoured.
This meaning would not suit here, unless we translate, as
Meyer does : " that their bodies might he dishonoured among
them " (the one by the other). But this meaning does not
correspond with the force of the apostolic thought. The
punishment consists not merely in being dishonoured, but

CHAP. I. 24, 26. 179

especially in dishonouring oneself. ^ATLfid^ecrOac must
therefore be taken as the middle, and in the active sense :
"to dishonour their bodies in themselves." If this middle
sense is not common in the classics, it is accidental, for it is
perfectly regular. The regimen in themselves looks super-
fluous at first sight; but Paul wishes to describe this blight
as henceforth inherent in their very personality : it is a seal
of infamy which they carry for the future on their forehead.
The meaning of the two readings ev avrolf; and ev kavToh does
not differ ; the first is written from the writer's point of view,
the second from the viewpoint of the authors of the deed.

The punishment is so severe that Paul interrupts himself,
as if he felt the need of recalling how much it was deserved.
With the omz/69, those who, ver. 25, he once more passes from
the punishment to the sin which had provoked it. God has
dealt so with them, as peo'ple who had dealt so with Him.
Such is the meaning of the pronoun ocrrt?, which does not
only designate, but describe. The verb fierrjXka^av, travestied,
through the addition of the preposition fierd, enhances the
force of the simple rfSXa^av, changed, of ver. 23 : the sin
appears ever more odious to the apostle, the more he thinks
of it. — The truth of God certainly means here : the true notion
of His being, the idea which alone corresponds to so sublime
a reality, and which ought to be produced by the revelation
of Himself which He had given ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 9, where
the true God is opposed to idols. As the abstract term is
used to denote the true God, so the abstract word lie here
denotes idols, that ignoble mask in which the heathen expose
the figure of the All-perfect. And here comes the height of
insult. After travestying God by an image unworthy of Him,
they make this the object of their veneration (ia-e/Sdo-drja-av).
To this term, which embraces all heathen life in general, Paul
adds iXdrpevaav, they served, which refers to positive acts of
worship. — Tlapd, by the side of signifies with the accusative :
passing beyond, leaving aside with contempt (to go and adore
something else). — The doxology which closes this verse : who
is blessed for ever, is a homage intended to wash off, as it were,
the opprobrium inflicted on God by heathenism. On account
of its termination, evXoyTjro^; may either signify : who ought to
be blessed, or : who is blessed. The second meaning is simpler

180 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

and more usual : just because He ought to be so, He is and
will be so, whatever the heathen may do in the matter. The
term el^ tou9 ala)va^,for ever, contrasts God's eternal glory
with the ephemeral honour paid to idols, or the temporary
affronts given to God. — 'Afiriv, amen, comes from the Hebrew
aman, to he firm. It is an exclamation intended to scatter by
anticipation all the mists which still exist in the consciousness-
of man, and darken the truth proclaimed.

Ver. 25 was an interruption extorted from Paul by the*
need which his outraged heart felt to justify once more the^
severity of such a punishment. He now resumes his exposi-
tion of the punishment, begun in ver. 24; and this time he-
proceeds to the end. He does not shrink from any detail
fitted to bring out the vengeance which God has taken on the
offence offered to His outraged majesty.

Vv. 26, 27. "For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections : for even their women did change the natural use into-
that which is against nature: and likewise^ also the men,,
leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly,,
and receiving in themselves'^ the well-merited recompense of their
error y — Ver. 26 resumes the description begun in ver. 24,
and which Paul had interrupted to ascend, ver. 25, from the
punishment to its cause. The hia rovro, for this cause, relates-
to ver. 25, and has the same logical bearing as the hio, where-
fore, in ver. 24, which referred to ver. 23 (reproduced in.
ver. 25). It is therefore perfectly natural that the verb of
the two propositions, vv. 24 and 26, should be one and
the same (TrapeSayKev, He gave over), — The complement
aTifiLa<;, of dishonour, is a genitive of quality (dishonouring,
vile). This word goes back on the end of ver. 24 : to-
dishonour their bodies among themselves. The term irdOrj,.
passions, has something still more ignoble in it than eVt-
6vfilai, lusts, in ver. 24; for it contains a more pronounced
idea of moral passivity, of shameful bondage. — The picture
which follows of the unnatural vices then prevalent in Gentile-
society is confirmed in all points by the frightful details con-
tained in the works of Greek and Latin writers. But it i»

A D G P read af^oiu; 5s instead of o/noiat rt, which all the others read.
' Instead of iv tuvrots, B K read i» uurott.

CHAt. I. 28. 181

asked, How can Paul give himself up, with a sort of com-
placency, to such a delineation ? The answer lies in the aim
of the whole passage to show the divine wrath displayed on
the Gentile world ; comp. the term avrifiiadla, meet recom-
pense, ver. 27. A law broods over human existence, a law
which is at the same time a divine act : Such as thou makest
thy God, such wilt thou make thyself. — The expressions
appeve^, Orfkeiai, literally, males, females, are chosen to suit the
spirit of the context. — The whole is calculated to show that
there is here a just recompense on the part of God. The
fierrjWa^av, they changed, travestied, corresponds to the same
verb, ver. 25, and the irapa <f)vaLv, contrary to nature,^ to the
^apd Tov KTio-avra of the same verse. — There is in the ofioLco^
re an idea of equality: and equally so, while the reading
ofioio)^ Bi of four Mjj. contains further an idea of progress, as
if the dishonouring of man by man were an intensification of
that of woman. — In the rjv eBet, which we have translated by
" well-merited recompense " (literally, the recompense which
was meet), one feels, as it were, the indignant breathing of God's
holy wrath. Justice could not let it be otherwise ! The
error, irXdvr), is not that of having sought satisfaction in such
infamies ; it is the voluntary lie of idolatry, the lie (i^eCSo?)
of ver. 25, the quenching of the truth, ver. 18 ; for this is
what explains the avTifita-Ola, the withering retribution just
described. Once again the clause in themselves brings out the
depth of this blight ; they bear it in themselves, it is visible
to the eyes of all.

The moral sentiment in man is based on the conception
of the holy God. To abandon the latter, is to paralyze the
former. By honouring God we ennoble ourselves ; by reject-
ing Him we infallibly ruin ourselves. Such, according to the
apostle, is the relation between heathenism and moral corrup-
tion. Independent morality is not that of St. Paul.

He has described the ungodliness of the Gentile world,
idolatry, and its punishment, unnatural impurities. He now
describes the other aspect of the world's sin, unrighteousness,
and its punishment, the overflowing of monstrous iniqidties
committed by men against one another, and threatening to
overwhelm society.

Ver. 28. 'And even as they did not think good to retain God

182 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

in their knowledge, God ^ gave them over to a mind void of dis-
cernment, to do those things which are not convenient." — The
ungodliness of the Gentiles was accompanied by a depth of
iniquity : the refusal to let the thought of the perfect God
rule human life. To retain God as an object of distinct knovj-
ledge (the literal sense of Paul's words), is to keep alive within
the mind the view of that holy Being, so that His will shall
give law to our whole conduct. This is what the Gentiles
refused to do. Ceasing to contemplate God and His will,
they were given over to all unrighteousness. — Kadoo<;, even as
(literally, agreeably to which), indicates anew the exact correla-
tion between this unrighteousness and the punishment about
to be described. — N0O9 aSoKifio^;, which we translate : a mind
void of discernment, corresponds to the ovk iBoKL/iiao-av, they
did not think good ; having refused to appreciate God, they
lost the true sense of moral appreciation, and this loss with
all its consequences is a judgment, as well as the unnatural
passions described above. Such is the force of the irapehcoKev,
gave over, corresponding to the same verb in vv. 24 and 26.
— The phrase : those things which are not convenient, to express
evil, is well suited to the notion of appreciation which is
included in the verb BoKifid^ecv, to judge good, and the adjec-
tive ahoKifjio^. Evil is here characterized as moral incongruity,
calculated to revolt the vov^, reason, if it were not deprived of
its natural discernment. The infinitive Troielv, to do, is almost
equivalent to a Latin gerund " in doing!' The subjective
negation //.?; with the participle signifies : all that is ranked in
the class designated by the participle. — Eemark, finally, the
intentional repetition of the substantive 6 6eo9, God : "As thou
treatest God, God treateth thee." It is by mistake that this
second God is omitted in the SinaU. and Alex. — Volkmar
makes ver. 28 the beginning of a new section. He would
have it that the subject begun here is Jewish, in opposition to
Gentile guiltiness (vv. 18-27). But nothing, either in the
text or in the thought, indicates such a transition ; tlie Kat,
also, is opposed to it, and the charge raised by the apostle in
the following verses, and especially ver. 32, is exactly the
opposite of the description which he gives of the Jews,
chap. ii. The latter appear as the judges of Gentile corruption,
^ 58 A here omit • ei«f.

I

CHAP. I. 29. 183

while the men characterized in ver. 32 give it their
applause.

Ver. 29«. " Being filled with all sort of unrighteousness}
perverseness, maliciousness, covetousness." ^ — In the following
enumeration we need not seek a rigorously systematic order.
Paul evidently lets his pen run on as if he thought that, of all
the bad terms which should present themselves, none would
be out of place or exaggerated. But in this apparent disorder
one can detect a certain grouping, a connection through the
association of ideas. — The first group which we have detached
in our translation embraces four terms ; according to the
T. E., five. But the word iropvela, uncleanness, should evi-
dently be rejected ; for it is wanting in many Mjj. ; it is
displaced in some others ; finally, the subject has been
exhausted in what precedes. — The phrase : " all sort of
unrighteousness^' embraces collectively the whole following
enumeration : Trovrjpui, perverseness, denotes the bad instinct of
the heart; KUKia, maliciousness, the deliberate wickedness
which takes pleasure in doing harm ; ifKeove^ia, covetousness
(the desire of having more irXiov €')(^6t,v), the passion for money,
which does not scruple to lay hold of the possessions of its
neighbour to augment its own. The participle ireTrXTjpwiMevov^,
filled, at the head of this first group, is in apposition to the
understood subject of Troietv.

Tlie four terms of this first group thus refer to injustices
committed against the well-being and property of our neighbour.

Ver. 296. " FiUl of envy, murder, debate, deceit, bitterness." —
These five terms form again a natural group, which embraces
all the injustices whereby the person of our neighbour is
injured. The adjective fie(TTov<;, fidl of (properly, stuffed), on
which this group depends, indicates a change of idea from the
preceding. As an adjective, it denotes solely the present
attribute, while the preceding participle implied the process of
gmwth which had led to the state described. The similarity
of sound in the two Greek words : <j)06vov, envy, and (povov,

^ After ahxia {unrighteousness) the T. R. reads vropvuu. {uncleanness), with L
only ; D F G place topvuec. after xa«/a {maliciousness) ; K A B C K reject it
entirely.

-These three last terms are transposed in the mss. (6< A: irotvpix nxxm

• AtovE^ia ; BL: T»v., irktov., xax.'y G: *«x. , Tfly., Tktot,),

184 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

murder, has led to their being often combined also in the
classics ; besides, envy leads to murder, as is shown by the
example of Cain. If envy does not go the length of making
away with him whose advantages give us umbrage, it seeks at
least to trouble him with deception in the enjoyment of his
wealth ; this is expressed by epi?, debate, quarrelling ; finally,
in this course one seeks to injure his neighbour by deceiving
him {hoko^, deceit), or to render his life miserable by bitterness
of temper {KaKorjOeia).

Ver. 30a. " Whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters." — The dispositions expressed in the six terms
of this group are those of which pride is the centre. There
is no reason for reducing them to four, as Hofmann would, by
making the second term the epithet of the first, and the fourth
that of the third ; this does not suit the rapidity of the
enumeration and the need of accumulating terms. — WiOvpLdTri^,
whisperer, the man who pours his poison against his neighbour
by whispering into the ear ; KardXaXo^, the man who blackens
publicly ; 06O(TTvyt]<; signifies, in the two classical passages
where it is found (Euripides), hated of God, and Meyer there-
fore contends that the passive sense ought to be preserved
here, while generalizing it ; the name would thus signify all
hardened malefactors. But this general meaning is impos-
sible in an enumeration in which the sense of each terra is
limited by that of all the rest. The active signification :
hating God, is therefore the only suitable one; it is the
highest manifestation of pride, which cannot brook the thought
of this superior and judge ; one might say : the most monstrous
form of calumny (the malediction of Providence) ; Suidas and
(Ecumenius, two writers nearer the living language than we,
thought they could give to this word the active signification,
a fact which justifies it sufficiently. To insolence toward
God (the sin of v^pt<; among the Greeks) there is naturally
joined insult offered to men: v^pta-Tij^, indolent, despiteful.
The term v'ireprj<l>avo^ (from virep, <t>alpofjLaL), proud, designates
the man who, from a feeling of his own superiority, regards
others with haughtiness ; while aXa^wv, boaster, denotes the
man who seeks to attract admiration by claiming advantages
he does not really possess.

Vv. 306, 31. '• Inventors of evil thitigs, disobedieiit to parents,

CHAP. I. 30, 31. 1 85

without understanding, covenant-hreakers, withoid natural affec-
tion} unmercifuV — The last group refers to the extinction of
all the natural feelings of humanity, filial affection, loyalty,
tenderness, and pity. It includes six terms. The first,
inventors of evil things, denotes those who pass their lives
meditating on the evil to be done to others ; so Antiochus
Epiphanes is called by the author of 2 Mace. (vii. 31),
TTciarj^; KaKia^ evperrj^, and Sejanus by Tacitus, facinorum
rcpertor. People of this stamp have usually begun to betray
their bad character in the bosom of their families — they have
been disobedient to tlieir parents. — ^Aavvero^, without under-
standing, denotes the man who is incapable of lending an ear
to wise counsel ; thus understood, it has a natural connection
with the previous tenn ; Hofmann cites Ps. xxxii. 8, 9. —
''Aavv6eTo<;, which many translate irreconcilable, can hardly
have this meaning, for the verb from which it comes does not
signify to reconcile, but to decide in common, and hence to maJct
a treaty. The adjective therefore describes the man who with-
out scruple violates the contracts he has signed, the faithless man.
— "Aaropyo';, without natural affection, from arepyeiv, to cherish,
caress, foster; this word denotes the destruction even of the
feelings of natural tenderness, as is seen in a mother who
■exposes or kills her child, a father who abandons his family,
or children who neglect their aged parents. If the following
word in the T. E., acrirovBov^, truce-breakers, were authentic,
its meaning would be confounded with that of aa-vvderov^,
rightly understood. — 'AveXeyjficov, unmerciful, is closely con-
nected with the preceding acnopyovf;, without tenderness ; but
its meaning is more general. It refers not only to tender
feelings within the family circle ; here it calls up before the
mind the entire population of the great cities flocking to the
circus to behold the fights of gladiators, frantically applauding
the effusion of human blood, and gloating over the dying
agonies of the vanquished combatant. Such is an example of
the unspeakable hardness of heart to which the wliole society
of the Gentile world descended. What would it have come
to if a regenerating breath had not at this supreme moment
passed over it ? It is in this last group that the fact which the

^ The T. R. here adds, with C K L P, crfov^ovs {without (jood/aiiK) \ but the
word is omitted by N A B D E G.

186 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

apostle is concerned to bring out is most forcibly emphasized,
that of a divine judgment manifesting itself in this state of
things. In fact, we have no more before us iniquities which
can be explained by a simple natural egoism. They are
enormities which are as unnatural as the infamies described
above as the punishment of heathenism. Thus is proved the
abandonment of men to a reprobate mind (the ahoKLfxo^ vov<;
of ver. 28).

Ver. 32. " Wlio, knowing^ the judgment of God, that they
ijhich commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the
same, hut applaud'^ those who do them.'' — The relation of this
verse to what precedes has been very generally misunderstood,
hence probably the corrections of the text attempted in some
Mss. — The most serious misunderstanding is that of Eitschl.
This theologian regards the men to whom this verse and the
four following (ii. 1—4) refer as forming a class by themselves,
and wholly different from the sinners described from ver. 19
onwards. The men who repress the truth, ver. 18, are according
to him divided into two classes : " those who through heathenism
have quenched the feeling of divine revelation (vv. 19—31),"
and " those who, while judging the immoralities produced by
paganism, nevertheless take part in them by their conduct
(ver. 32-ii. 4)." But it is easy to see that this construction is
devised solely with the view of finding the development of the
idea of divine wrath, ver. 18, in the passage ii. 5 et seq., and
not in the TrapaBiBovat,, giving over, of vv. 24, 26, and 28
(see p. 168). This construction, proposed by Eitschl, is im-
possible. 1. Because judging with a view to approve, ver. 32,
is not the same thing as judging to condemn, ii. 1, 2. 2. On
account of the obvious relation between the terms of ver. 3 2 :
though JcTwwing the judgment of God, and those of ver. 2 8 : they
did not keep God in their knowledge. 3. The uniform sense of
the pronoun ohtve^i, as people who, forces us to seek in the
description of ver. 32 the justification of the judgment described
from ver. 28. Far, then, from indicating a change of persons,
this pronoun expresses the moral qualification by which the

* Instead of i-r/yvayny, B reads iTiynuffKovTis. — To the participle iTiyvovrtSy
D E add the verb ««/« tva^o-av, and O : ouk tyvaxrav. Further on D adds y«p after

•V fiovev.

* In place of the two verbs ^oievcriv, vu*t^''o»xouatv, B reads xoiouvth, auvivo«x.ovm^

L

CHAP. L 32. 1 87

individuals just described have drawn on them so severe a
punishment. It is an exact parallel to the oltiv6<; of ver. 25.
The latter justified the judgment ot idolaters by recalling to
mind the greatness of their offence. The former in the same
way justifies the punishment which has overtaken the resist-
ance of man to the revelation of moral good (ver. 28a) : " They
had well deserved to be given over to this deluge of iniquities,
they ivho had acted thus toward God when He revealed His
will to them." The terms which follow and explain the
pronoun they ivho, set forth this radical iniquity through which
men quenched the sentiment of moral truth revealed in them ;
comp. ver. 28a. To BiKaLcofia, strictly, what God establishes as
just ; here : His just sentence ; i'7rvyv6vr6<; denotes the clear
discernment which men had of it. The word recalls the
ryvovTef; rbv Oeop, knowing God, of ver. 2 1 : moral light was pro-
duced in them as well as religious light. The words following
indicate the contents of that sentence which God had taken
care to engrave on their heart. What appeals to God's justice
do we not find in the writings of Gentile historians and
philosophers ! What a description in their poets of the punish-
ment inflicted on malefactors in Tartarus ! The phrase worthy of
death has been applied by some, and recently again by Hofmann,
to the punishrnent of death as executed by human judges. But
this penalty would suit only one term in the whole preceding
enumeration, viz. <f)6vo^, murder; and the to, roiavra, such
things, does not allow so restricted an application. Death
therefore here denotes death as God only can inflict it, the
pains of Hades, which the Gentiles also recognised, and which
Paul, designating things from his own point of view, calls
death. The second part of the verse leads from the offence to
the punishment. It is the mind deprived of discernment, to
which God has given up men, in its most monstrous mani-
festation ; not only doing evil, but applauding those who do
it ! This is true to fact. Had not the Caligulas and ]N"ero3
found advocates, admirers, multitudes always ready to offer
them incense ? The oiot only, hut even, rightly assumes that
there is more guilt in approving in cold blood of the evil
committed by others, Ihan in committing it oneself under
the force and blindness of passion. Such a mode of acting is
therefore the last stage ^^ the corruption of the moral sense.

188 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

The reading of the Cantab, would signify: "They who,
knowing the sentence of God, did not understand that those
who do such things are worthy of death ; for not only do they
do them, etc." . . . This meaning would be admissible, but
the contents of the sentence of God would remain absolutely
unexplained, which is far from natural. The reading of the
Vatic, would give the following translation: "They who,
knowing the sentence of God, that those who do such things
are worthy of death, not only doing those things, but approving
those who do them." The construction in this case demands
the doubling of the verb elaiv, are (first, as verb of the pro-
position OTL, that those who; then as verb of the proposition
0LTLV€<;, they who). This construction is very forced ; it is very
probable, as has been supposed, that the reading of B is only
an importation into the apostolic text of a form of quotation
found in the Epistle of Clemens Eomanus. This Father,
quoting our passage, says : " They who practise these things
are abominable in the sight of God ; and not only they who
do them {ol irpdacrovTe<i), but those also who approve them (ol
o-vvevBoKovvres;)." The "did not tmderstand" and the for
added by the Gantah., appear to be mere attempts to correct
the reading of the Vaticanus. In the whole of this chapter
tlie apostle evidently distinguishes two degrees in the sin of
the Gentile world; the one active and internal, the other
passive and external; the one a natural result of depraved
instinct, the other having the character of unnatural monstro-
sity. The first is chargeable on man, it is his guilt ; the
second is sin as a punishment, the manifest sign of God's
wrath. This great historical fact is developed in two aspects.
First, from the religioiis point of view: man quenches his
intuition of the Divine Being, and clothes God in the form of
an idol ; his punishment in this connection is self-degradation
by monstrous impurities. Then in the moral point of view :
man quenches the light of conscience, and as a punishment
his moral discernment is so perverted that he puts the seal of
his approbation on all the iniquities which he should have con-
demned and prevented. This is the worst of corruptions, that
of the conscience. Thus is fully justified the great thought
of ver. 18 : The wrath of God displayed on the Gentile world
to punish the voluntary dai'kening of the religious sense

CHAP. II. 1. 189

{ungodliness) and of the moral sense (unrighteousness), wliich
had been awakened in man by the primeval revelation of God

FIFTH PASSAGE (II. 1-29).
The Wrath of God suspended over the Jewish People.

In the midst of this flood of pollutions and iniquities which
Gentile society presents to view, the apostle sees one who
like a judge from the height of his tribunal sends a stern look
over the corrupt mass, condemning the evil which reigns in
it, and applauding the wrath of God which punishes it. It i&
this new personage whom he apostrophizes in the following
words : —

Ver. 1. " Therefore thou art inexc^csable, 0 man, whosoever thou
art that judgest : for wherein thou judgest another, thou con-
demnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." —
Wliom is the apostle addressing ? Gentile magistrates, say
the old Greek commentators. But a magistrate is appointed
to judge crimes ; he could not be reproached for filling hi&
office. The best of the Gentiles, say the Reformers, and
Hofmann in our own day. But what purpose would be
served, in this vast survey of the general state of mankind, by
such a slight moral warning given to the best and wisest of
the Gentiles not to set themselves to judge others ? Besides,,
this precept could not be more than a parenthesis, while it i&
easy to see that ver. 1 is exactly like ver. 18 of chap, i.,
the theme of all the development which immediately follows
chap. ii. Evidently the person apostrophized in these terms :
0 man . . ., forms an exception among those men {av6 poairoL,
i. 18) who hurtfuUy and wickedly reject the truth. He does
not repress, on the contrary he proclaims it ; but he contents
himself with applying it to others. The true name of this
collective personage, whose portrait Paul proceeds to draw
without yet naming him, will be pronounced in ver. 17:" Now
if thou Jew" The apostle knows how delicate the task is
which he is approaching, that of proving to the elect people
that divine wrath, now displayed against the Gentiles, is like-
wise suspended over them. He is about to drag to God's
tribunal the nation which thinks itself at liberty to cite all

190 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Others to its bar. It is a bold enterprise. The apostle
proceeds cautiously. He first expresses his thought abstractly:
thou who judgest, whosoever thou arty to unveil it fully after-
wards. Chap, ii is thus the parallel of the passage i. 18-32 :
it is the trial of the Jewish after that of the Gentile world.
And the first two verses are its theme.

The course followed by the apostle is this: — In the first
part, vv. 1—16, he lays down the principle of God's true
{im^diitidX) judgnnent. In the second, vv. 17-29, he applies it
directly to the Jew. — The first part contains the development
of three ideas. 1. Favours received, far from forming a
ground for exemption from judgment, aggravate the responsi-
bility of the receiver, vv. 1-5. 2. The divine sentence rests
on the works, vv. 6-12. 3. Not on knowledge, vv. 13-16.

The ht,6, wherefore, which connects this passage with the
preceding, presents a certain difficulty which Hofmann and
Eitschl have used to justify their far from natural explanations
of the preceding. Meyer takes this connecting particle as
referring to the whole preceding description from ver. 18. For
if a man is guilty, if he commits such things without judging
them, it follows that he is still more guilty if he commit them
while judging them. Ver. 1 might, however, be connected more
particularly with ver. 32. In point of fact, if sinning while
applauding the sin of others is criminal, would not men be
more inexcusable still if they condemned the sin of others while
joining in it ? In the former case there is at least agreement
between thought and action, — the man does what he expressly
approves, — while in the second there is an internal contradic-
tion and a flagrant hypocrisy. In the act of judging, the
judge condemns his own doing. — The word inexcusahle, here
applied to the Jews, is the counterpart of the same epithet
already applied to the Gentiles, i. 20. — Whosoever thou art
iirai) : whatever name thou bearest, were it even the glorious
name of Jew. Paul does not say this, but it is his meaning. —
It is enough that thou judgest, that I may condemn thee in
this character of judge ; for thy judgment recoils on thyself.
The Jews, as we know, liked to call the Gentiles afiapTwXoi
sinners, Gal. ii. 15. — 'Ev S, wherein, signifies-. "Thou doest
two things at once; thou condemnest thy neighbour, and by
condemning him for things which thou doest, thou takest

CHAP. n. 2. 191

away all excuse for thyself." This meaning is much more
pungent than Meyer's : in the same things which — that is to
say, in the things which thou doest, and which at the same
time thou condemnest. There was undoubtedly a difference
between the moral state of the Jews and that of other nations,
but the passage vv. 17-24 will show that this difference was
only relative. The repetition of the words : tliou who judgest,
at the end of the sentence, brings out strongly the exceptional
character in virtue of which this personage is brought on the
scene. The apostle confronts the falsehood under which the
man shelters himself with a simple luminous truth, to which
no conscience can refuse its assent.

Ver. 2. " Now^ we are sure that the judgment of God is
according to truth against them which commit such things!^ —
We might give the 8e an adversative sense : " But God does
not let Himself be deceived by this judgment which thou
passest on others." It is more natural, however, to translate
this he by noWy and to take this verse as the major of a
syllogism. The minor, ver. 1 : thy judgment on others con-
demns thee ; the major, ver. 2 : now the judgment of God is
always true ; the conclusion understood (between vv. 2 and 3) :
therefore thy hypocritical judgment cannot shelter thee from
that of God. The connecting particle ^dp, for, in two Alex,
is inadmissible. This for, to be logical, must bear on the
proposition: thou condemnest thyself which is unnatural, as
a new idea has intervened since then. — What is the subject
in we know ? According to some : we. Christians. But
what would the knowledge of Christians prove against the
Jewish point of view which Paul is here combating ? Others :
we, Jews. But it was precisely the Jewish conscience which
Paul was anxious to bring back to truth on this point. The
matter in question is a truth inscribed, according to the apostle,
on the human conscience as such, and which plain common
sense, free from prejudices, compels us to own : " But every
one knows." — The term Kplfia does not denote, like KpL(7L<;, the
act of judging, but its contents, the sentence. The sentence
which God pronounces on every man is agreeable to truth.
There would be no more truth in the universe it there were
Done in the judgment of God ; and there would be none in
^ C{ C read yetf instead of ot.

192 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the judgment of God if, to be absolved ourselves, it were
enough to condemn others. — The words /cara aXrjdeiav have
sometimes been explained in the sense of really : " that there
is really a judgment of God against those who "... But
what the Jews disputed was not the fact of judgment ; it was
its impartiality — that is to say, its truth. They could not get
rid of the idea that in that day they would enjoy certain
immunities due to their purer creed, and the greatly higher
position which they held than that of other nations. — Such
things, that is to say, those referred to by the same word,
ver. 32. — But the apostle is not unaware that in the Jewish
conscience there is an obstacle to the full application of this
principle ; it is this obstacle which he now labours to remove.
Vv. 3-5 develope the words : they who do such things (whoever
they are, should they even be Jews) ; vv. 6—16 will explain
what is meant by a judgment according to truth.

Ver. 3. " But thou thinkest this, 0 man, that judgest them
which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape
the judgment of God ? " — We might, with Hofmann, take the
verbs XoyL^rf and KaTa^povet^ (thou countest, thou despisest) in
an affirmative sense. But the ^, or indeed, at the beginning
of ver. 4 would rather incline us, following Paul's ordinary
usage, to interpret these words in the interrogative sense ; not,
however, that we need translate the former in the sense of :
thinkest thou ? The interrogation is less abrupt : " thou
thinkest no doubt?" The word Xoyi^eadai,, to reason, well
describes the false calculations whereby the Jews persuaded
themselves that they would escape the judgment with which
God would visit the Gentiles. Observe the av, thou : " that
thou wilt escape, thou," a being by thyself, a privileged person I
It was a Jewish axiom, that " every one circumcised has part
in the kingdom to come." A false calculation. Such, then,
is the first supposition serving to explain the security of the
Jew ; but there is a graver still. Perhaps this false calcula-
tion proceeds from a moral fact hidden in the depths of the
heart. Paul drags it to the light in what follows.

Vv. 4, 5. " Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and
forbearance and long-suffering ; not knowing that the goodness
of God leadeth thee to repentance ? But, after thy hardness and
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the

CHAP. II. 4, 5. 193

lay of wrath and revelation ^ of the righteous judgment of God."
— H, or even. The meaning is : is there something even worse
than an illusion ; is there contempt ? The case then would
be more than foolish, it would be impious ! The riches of
goodness, of which the apostle speaks, embrace all God's
benefits to Israel in the past : that special election, those
consecutive revelations, that constant care, finally, the sending
of the Messiah, all that constituted the privileged position
which Israel had enjoyed for so many ages. The second term,
dvoxV) pci'tience (from dve')(eadai, to restrain oneself), denotes
the feeling awakened in the benefactor when his goodness is
put to the proof by ingratitude. Paul has in view no doubt
the murder of the Messiah, which divine justice might have
met with the immediate destruction of the nation. The third
term, fiaKpoOvfila, long-suffering, refers to the incomprehensible
prolongation of Israel's existence, in spite of the thirty con-
secutive years of resistance to the appeals of God, and to the
preaching of the apostles which had elapsed, and in spite of
such crimes as the murder of Stephen and James (Acts vii.
and xii.). The three words form an admirable climax. The
last (long-suffering) characterizes this treasure of grace as ex-
hausted, and that of wrath as ready to discharge itself. The
notion of contempt is explained by the fact that the more God
shows Himself good, patient, and meek, the more does the
pride of Israel seem to grow, and the more does the nation
show itself hostile to the gospel. — ''A^vowv may be translated :
not knowing, or mistaking ; the first meaning is simpler and
may suffice, for there is a voluntary ignorance, the result of
bad faith, in consequence of which we do not see what we da
not care to see ; it is this ignorance which is referred to here.
— The phrase to 'x^pT^arov tov ©eov is touching : what is good,
sweet, gentle in God (%/0'^a-TO9, strictly : that may he handled,
lohat one may make use of, from ')(pdojjLai). The form : " what
good there is " . . . leaves it to be inferred that there is some-
thing else in God, and that He will not let Himself be always
treated thus with impunity. The time will come when He will
act with rigour. — The word ayetv, to bring to, implies the power
possessed by man of yielding to or resisting the attraction
exercised over him. If he could not resist it, how could the
' The correctors of N and D, and the Mjj. K L P, insert a »a/ after a^o^ca^w^sui,
GODET. 21 KOM. L

194 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Jews be accused of committing this offence at this very time ?
Merdvoia, repentance, is the act whereby man goes back on hia
former views, and changes his standpoint and feeling.

Ver. 6. The Be, hut, contrasts the result of so many favours
received with the divinely desired effect. The contrast indi-
cated arises from the fact that the Jews in their conduct are
guided by a wholly different rule from that to which the
mercy of God sought to draw them. This idea of rule is
indeed what explains the preposition Kara, according to, which
is usually made into a &y. The word denotes a line of con-
duct long followed, the old Jewish habit of meeting the calls
of God with a hard and impenitent heart ; what Stephen so
forcibly upbraided them with, Acts vii. 51 : "Ye stiffnecked
(a-KKijpoTpdxv^oi,) and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do
always resist the Holy Ghost ; as your fathers did, so do ye."
— Hardness relates to insensibility of heart to divine favours ;
impenitence, to the absence of that change of views which the
feeling of such goodness should have produced. — But it must
not be thought that these favours are purely and simply lost.
Instead of the good which they should have produced, evil
results from them. Every favour trampled under foot adds
to the treasure of wrath which is already suspended over the
heads of the impenitent people. There is an evident correla-
tion between the phrase riches of goodness, ver. 4, and the
Greek word Orjaavpl^etv, to treasure up. The latter word, as
well as the dative (of favour !) aeavTS, for thyself, have cer-
tainly a tinge of irony. What an enriching is that ! WraM
is here denounced on the Jews, as it had been, i. 18, on the
Gentiles. The two passages are parallel ; there is only this
difference between them, that among the Gentiles the thunder-
bolt has already fallen, while the storm is still gathering for
the Jews. The time when it will burst on them is called the
day of wrath. In this phrase two ideas are combined : that
of the great national catastrophe which had been predicted by
John the Baptist and by Jesus (Matt. iii. 10 ; Luke xi. 50, 51),
and that of the final judgment of the guilty taken individually
at the last day. The preposition iv (" in the day ") may be
made dependent on the substantive wrath : " the wrath ivhich
will have its ftdl course in the day when "... But it is more
natural to connect this regimen with the verb: "thou art

CITA.P. IL 6. 195

lieaping np a treasure which shall be paid to thee in the day
when "... The writer transports himself in thought to the
day itself; he is present then: hence the iv instead of etV —
The three Byz. Mjj. and the correctors of the SinaU. and of
the Cantab, read a /cat, and, between the two words revelation
and just judgment, and thus give the word " day " three com-
plements : day of wrath, of revelation, and of just judgment.
These three names would correspond well with the three of
ver. 4 : goodness, patience, long-suffering ; and the term revelation,
without complement, would have in it something mysterious
and threatening quite in keeping with the context. This
reading is, however, improbable. The Kai (and) is omitted
not only in the Mjj. of the two other families, but also in the
ancient versions (Syriac and Latin) ; besides, the word revela-
tion can hardly be destitute of all qualification. The apostle
therefore says : the revelation of the righteous judgment ; thus
indicating that wi-ath (righteous judgment) is still veiled so
far as the Jews are concerned (in contrast to the airoKaXvir-
rerai, is revealed, i. 18), but that then it will be fuUy unveiled
in relation to them also. — Only two passages are quoted
where the word ScKatofcpLa-La, just judgment, is used: in a Greek
translation of Hos. iv. 5, and in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs. The word recalls the phrase of ver. 2 : " The
judgment of God according to truth." It dissipates beforehand
the illusions cherished by the Jews as to the immunity which
they hoped to enjoy in that day in virtue of their theocratic
privileges. It contains the theme of the development which
immediately follows. The just judgment of God (the judgment
according to truth, ver. 2) will bear solely on the moral life of
each individual, vv. 6-12, not on the external fact of being
the hearer of a law, vv. 13—16. These are the positive and
negative characteristics of a judgment according to righteous-
ness.— It would be unaccountable how Eitschl could have
mistaken the obvious relation between vv. 5 and 4 so far as
to connect ii. 5 with the notion of wrath, i. 18, had not a
preconceived idea imposed on him this exegetical violence.

Ver. 6. "Who will render to every one according to his deeds."
— No account will be taken of any external circumstance, but
solely of the aim which has governed the man's moral action.
It has been asked how this maxim can be reconciled with the

196 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

doctrine of justification by faith. Fritzsche finds in them twa
different theories presenting an insoluble contradiction. Others
think that in the judgment the moral imperfections of believers
will be covered by their faith ; which would convert faith
into a means of sinning with impunity. What a just judg-
ment that would be ! Melanchthon, Tholuck, and others hold
that this standard is purely hypothetical; it would he the
standard which God would have applied if redemption had
not intervened. But the future, " will render" is not a con-
ditional (would render). Besides, judgment according to the
deeds done, is attested by many other passages, both from Paul
(Eom. xiv. 12; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Gal. vi. 6), from Jesus Him-
self (John V. 28, 29 ; Matt. xii. 36, 37, etc.), and from other
writings of the New Testament (Rev. xx. 13). Eitschl thinks
that throughout this passage it is a Pharisee whom Paul
introduces as speaking, and who starts from a narrow idea
of divine justice — the idea, viz., of retributive justice. But
what trace is there in the text of such an accommodation on
the apostle's part to a standpoint foreign to his own ? The
logical tissue of the piece, and its relation to what precedes
and follows, present no breach of continuity. There is only
one answer to the question raised, unless we admit a flagrant
contradiction in the apostle's teaching: that justification by
faith alone applies to the time of entrance into salvation
through the free pardon of sin, but not to the time of judg-
ment. "When God of free grace receives the sinner at the time
of his conversion. He asks nothing of him except faith ; but
from that moment the believer enters on a wholly new respon-^
sibility ; God demands from him, as the recipient of grace, the-
fruits of grace. This is obvious from the parable of the talents.
The Lord commits His gifts to His servants freely ; but from
the moment when that extraordinary grace has been shown.
He expects something from their labour. Comp. also the
parable of the wicked debtor, where the pardoned sinner who
refuses to pardon his brother is himself replaced under the
rule of justice, and consequently under the burden of his
debt. The reason is that faith is not the dismal prerogative
of being able to sin with impunity ; it is, on the contrary, the
means of overcoming sin and acting holily ; and if this life-
fruit is not produced, it is dead, and wiU be declared vain.

CHAP. II. 7, 8. 197

** Every barren tree will be hewn down and cast into the fire "
(Matt. iii. 10). Comp. the terrible warnings, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10,
Oal. vi. 7, which are addressed to believers. — The two follow-
ing verses develope the idea of the verb airohaxreL, will render.

Vv. 7, 8. " To thera who, hy patient continuance in well-doing,
seek for glory and honour and immortality, [to such] eternal
life: hut unto them that are contentious, and do not ohey the
truth, hut ohey unrighteousness, [for such] wrath and indigna-
tion!"^

The Jews divided men into circumcised, and consequently
saved, and uncircumcised, and consequently damned. Here
is a new classification, which Paul substitutes, founded solely
on the moral aim. — There are two principal ways of constru-
ing ver. 7. Sometimes the three words : glory, honour, immor-
tality, are made the objects of the verb : will render (ver. 6),
understood. The phrase : patient continuance in well-doing, is
thus taken to qualify the pronoun rolf; fiiv, to them, and the
last words : ^Tjrovatv k.t.X., become merely an explanatory ap-
pendix : " to wit, to them who seek eternal life." The mean-
ing of the verse thus taken is : " to them who live in patient
continuance in well-doing [He will render] glory and honour
and immortality, [to wit, to those] who seek eternal life."
But this construction is very forced. 1. The subordinate
clause : " in continuance," is rather the qualification of a verb
than of a pronoun like roU fiev. 2. The participle ^rjroOa-t
would require the article toI<;, and would make a clumsy and
superfluous appendix. The construction, as given in our trans-
lation, is much more simple and significant. The regimen
Ka6' vTTOfiovrjv, literally, according to the standard of patient con-
tinuance in well-doing, corresponds with the seek, on which it
depends ; seeking must be in a certain line. And the weighty
word eternal life, at the close of this long sentence, depicts,
as it were, the final and glorious issue of this long and labo-
rious practice of goodness. This accusative is the object of
the verb : will render, understood (ver. 6). — The notion of
fatient continuance is emphasized here, not only in opposition
to the idea of intermittent moral efforts, but to indicate that
there are great moral obstacles to be met on this path, and
that a persistent love of goodness is needed to surmount them.
* T. B., with K L P, places «/>y« after ^i/^«*.

198 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

The apostle says literally: perseverance in good work. In
ver. 6 he had used the plural worUs. He now comprehends this
multiplicity of works in the profound principle which constitutes
their unity, the permanent determination to realize goodness.
"What supports a man in this course is the goal which he has
constantly before him : glory, an existence without defilement
or weakness, resplendent throughout with the divine bright-
ness of holiness and power ; honour, the approbation of God,,
which forms the eternal honour of its object ; immortality
{incorrwptihility), the absolute impossibility of any wound or
interruption or end to this state of being. The ands, Kai^
before the last two substantives, show a certain degree of
emotion ; the accumulation of terms arises from the same
cause. In all human conditions there are souls which con-
template the ideal here described, and which, ravished with
its beauty, are elevated by it above every earthly ambition
and the pursuit of sensual gratifications. These are the men
who are represented under the figure of the merchant seeking
goodly pearls. For such is the pearl of great price, life
eternal ! This last word, laden as it were with all divine
riches, denotes the realization of the ideal just described ; it
worthily closes this magnificent proposition.

But is it asked again, where, in this description of a normal
human life, are faith and salvation by the gospel to be found ?
Does Paul then preach salvation by the work of man ? The
apostle has not to do here with the means whereby we can
really attain to well-doing ; he merely affirms that no one will
be saved apart from the doing of good, and he assumes that the
man who is animated with this persistent desire will not fail,
some time or other, in the journey of life, to meet with the
means of attaining an end so holy and glorious. This means
is faith in the gospel, — a truth which Paul reserves for proof
at a later stage. " He that doeth truth,'' said Jesus to the
same effect, " cometh to the light" as soon as it is presented to
him (John iii. 2 1 ; comp. vii. 1 7). The love of goodness,
which is the spring of his life, will then lead him to embrace
Christ, the ideal of goodness ; and, having embraced Him, he
will find in Him the triumphant power for well-doing of which
he was in quest. The desire of goodness is the acceptance
*)f the fijospel by anticipation. The natural corollary of these

CHAP. IL 7, 8. 199

premisses is the thought expressed by Peter : the preaching of
the gospel before the judgment to every human soul, either
in this life or in the next (1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, iv. 6). Comp.
Matt. xii. 31,32. And if the apostle has spoken of patient con-
tinuance in this pursuit, it is because he is well aware of that
power of self-mastery which is needed, especially in a Jew, to
break with his nation, and family, and all his past, and to
remain faithful to the end to the supreme love of goodness.

The other class of men is described ver. 8. The regimen
e'^ ipideia^ can without difficulty serve to qualify the pronoun
Toh Bi ; comp. the construction o or ol €k Trto-Teco?, iii. 2 6 ;
Gal. iii. 7. The meaning is : " but for those who are under
the dominion of the spirit of contention." — The word ipiO^ta,
contention, does not come, as has been often thought, from e/jt?,
disputation, but, as Fritzsche has proved, from ^pcdo^, mercenary;
whence the verb ipiOeveiv, " to work for wages," then, " to put
oneself at the service of a party." The substantive iptOela
therefore denotes the spirit which seeks the victory of the
party which one has espoused from self-interest, in contrast
to the spirit which seeks the possession of the truth. Paul
knew well from experience the tendency of Eabbinical dis-
cussions, and he characterizes it by a single word. The term
truth is here used abstractly ; but Paul has, nevertheless, in
view the concrete realization of this notion in the gospel
revelation. Unrighteousness, which he contrasts with truth
(exactly as Jesus does, John vii. 18), denotes the selfish
passions, vain ambitions, and unrighteous prejudices, which
lead a man to close his eyes to the light when it presents
itself, and thus produce unbelief. Unrighteousness leads to
this result as certainly as moral integrity leads to faith.
Jesus developes precisely the same thought, John iii. 19, 20.
The words wrath and indignation, which express the wages
earned by such conduct, are in the nominative in Greek, not
in the accusative, like the word eternal life (ver. 7). They are
not, therefore, the object of the verb will render, which is too
remote. We must make them either the subject of a verb
understood (earrai, will he, there will he), or, better still, an
exclamation : " for them, wrath ! " The three Byz. Mjj. follow
the psychological order, " indignation and wraith ! " First the
internal emotion {indignation)^ then the external manifestation

200 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

{wrath) ; but the other two families present the inverse order,
and rightly so. For what is first perceived is the manifesta-
tion ; then we pass upwards to the feeling which inspires it,
and which gives it all its gravity, ©u/io? is the emotion of
the soul; op^yr) comprehends look, sentence, chastisement. —
Why does the apostle once again repeat this contrast of vv.
V and 8 in vv. 9 and 10 ? Obviously with the view of
now adding to each term of the contrast the words : to the Jew
first, and also to the Greek, which expressly efface the false
line of demarcation drawn by Jewish theology.

Vv. 9, 10. "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of
^man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek ; hut
glory and honour and peace to every man that worketh good,
to the Jew first, and also to the Gi^eek ! " — The asyndeton
indicates, as it always does, the more emphatic reassertion of
the previous idea : " Yes, tribulation and anguish ! " — The
antithesis of vv. 7, 8 is reproduced in inverse order, not only to
ftvoid the monotony of a too exact parallelism, but chiefly
because, following up ver. 8 {wrath and indignation), the idea
of ver. 9 {tribulation and anguish) presented itself more
naturally than that of ver 10 {glory and honour and peace) ;
comp. the same arrangement, Luke i. 51-53. The terms
tribulation and angidsh describe the moral and external state
of the man on whom the indignation and loi^ath of the judge
fall (ver. 8). Tribulation is the punishment itself (corre-
sponding to wrath); anguish is the wringing of the heart
which the punishment produces ; it corresponds to the judge's
indignation. The soul is mentioned as the seat of feeling.
■The phrase, every soul of man, expresses the equality and
universality of the treatment dealt out. Yet within this
equality there is traced a sort of preference both as to
judgment and salvation respectively (ver. 10), to the detri-
ment and advantage of the Jew. When he says first, the
apostle has no doubt in view (as in i. 16) a priority in time ;
comp. 1 Pet. iv. 17. Must we not, however, apply at the
same timp the principle laid down by Jesus, Luke xii. 41-48,
according to which he who receives most benefits is also the
man who has the heaviest responsibility ? In any case, there-
fore, whoever escapes judgment, it will not be the Jew; if
there were but one judged, it would be he. Such is the

CHAP. II. 11, 12. 201

apostle's answer to the claim alleged, ver. S: otl crv iK^ev^rj,
tliat thou, tlwu alone, shalt escape.

Ver. 1 0, The third term : peace, describes the subjective
feeling of the saved man at the time when glory and honour
are conferred on him by the judge. It is the profound peace
which is produced by deliverance from wrath, and the pos-
session of unchangeable blessedness. The simple ipyd^eadai,
to do, is substituted for the compound Karepyd^ecrdaL, to
perpetrate (ver. 9), which implies something ruder and more
violent, as is suited to evil ; comp. the analogous though not
identical difference between iroieiv and irpdcrcreLv, John iii.
20, 21. — On the word first, comp. the remarks made i. 16,
ii. 9.

Here again the apostle indicates the result finally reached,
whether evil or good, without expressly mentioning the means
by which it may be produced ; on the one hand, the rejection
of the gospel (ver. 9), as the supreme sin, at once the effect
and the cause of evil-doing ; on the other, its acceptance
(ver. 10), as effect and cause of the determination to follow
goodness and of its practice. But what is the foundation of
such a judgment ? One of God's perfections, which the Jew
could not deny without setting himself in contradiction to the
whole Old Testament, the impartiality of God, whose judgment
descends on evil wherever it is found, with or without laio
{vv. 11, 12).

Vv. 11, 12. ''For there is no respect of persons tuith God.
For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish
without law : and as many as have sinned in the law shall he
judged hy the law'' — The principle stated in ver. 11 is one of
those most frequently asserted in the Old Testament; comp.
Deut. X. 17 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 7 ; 2 Chron. xix. 7 ; Job xxxiv. 19.
Accordingly, no Jew could dispute it. — The phrase Trpoacoirov
Xa/jL^dveiv, literally ; to accept the countenance, to pay regard to
the external appearance, belongs exclusively to Hellenistic Greek
(in the LXX.) ; it is a pure Hebraism ; it forcibly expresses
the opposite idea to that of just judgment, which takes account
only of the moral worth of persons and acts. With God
signifies, in that luminous sphere whence only just sentences
■emanate. But is not the fact of the law being given to some,
and refused to others, incompatible with this divine impartiality ?

202 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

No, answers ver. 12; for if the Gentile perishes, he will not
perish for not having possessed the law, for no judgment will
cause him to be sifted by the Decalogue and the Mosaic
ordinances ; and if the Jew should sin, the law will not
exempt him from punishment, for the code will be the very
standard which judgment will apply to all his acts. Thus
the want of the law no more destroys the one than its
possession saves the other. The aorist rjfjLaprov, sinned, trans-
ports us to the point of time when the result of human life
appears as a completed fact, the hour of judgment. The /cat,
also (" will also perish without law "), brings out the congruity
between the mode of the sin and that of the perdition. In
the second proposition, this also is not repeated, for it is a
matter of course that where there is a law, men should be
judged by it. The absence of the article in Greek before the
word law, makes this word a categorical term, " A mode of
living over which a law presides ; " as applied : the Mosaic
law. — Atd vofjLov, by lavj, that is to say, by the application of a
positive code (the Mosaic code). We must beware of regard-
ing the difference between the two verbs: airoXovvTai, shall
perish, and Kptdrjo-ovrac, shall be judged, as accidental (Meyer).
The very thing the apostle wishes is by this antithesis to
emphasize the idea that the Jews alone shall be, strictly
speaking, subjected to a judgment, a detailed inquiry, such as
arises from applying the particular articles of a code. The
Gentiles shall perish simply in consequence of their moral
corruption; as, for example, ruin overtakes the soul of the
vicious, the drunken, or the impure, under the deleterious
action of their vice. The rigorous application of the principle
of divine impartiality thus brings the apostle to this strange
conclusion : the Jews, far from being exempted from judgment
by their possession of the law, shall, on the contrary, be the
only people judged (in the strict sense of the word). It was
the antipodes of their claim, and we here see how the pitiless
logic of the apostle brings things to such a point, that not
only is the thesis of his adversary refuted, but its opposite is
demonstrated to be the only true one.— Thus all who shall be
found in the day of judgment to have sinned shall perish, each
in his providential place, a result which establishes the divina
impartiality.

CHAP. II. 13. fi03

It is evident that in the two propositions of this verse
there is the idea understood : unless the amnesty offered by
the gospel has been accepted, and has produced its proper
fruits, the fruits of holiness (in which case the word ^/xaproi/,.
sinned, would cease to be the summing up and last word of
the earthly life). — And why cannot the possession of the law
preserve the Jews from condemnation, as they imagine ? The
explanation is given in ver. 13, and the demonstration in
vv. 14-16.

Ver. 1 3. " For not the hearers of the ^ law are just lefon
God ; hut the doers of the ^ law, they shall he justified." — Why
hearers rather than possessors or readers ? To describe the
position of the Jews who heard the reading of the law in the
synagogue every Sabbath, and who for the most part knew it
only in this way (Luke iv. 16 et seq. ; Acts xiii. 15, xv. 21).
— Before God, says Paul ; for before men it was otherwise, the
Jews ascribing righteousness to one another on account of
their common possession of the law. If such a claim were
well founded, the impartiality of God would be destroyed, for
the fact of knowing the law is a hereditary advantage, and
not the fruit of moral action. The judicial force of the
term BiKaKodrjvat, to he justified, in Paul's writings, comes out
forcibly in this passage, since in the day of judgment no one
is made righteous morally speaking, and can only be recognised
and declared such. This declarative sense appears likewise in
the use of the preposition irapd (before God), which neces-
sarily refers to an act of God as judge (see on i. 17). The
article tov before vojjlov, law, in the two propositions, is found
only in the Byz. Mjj. ; it ought to be expunged : the hearers,
the doers of a law. No doubt it is the Mosaic law which is
referred to, but as law, and not as Mosaic. Some think that
this idea of justification by the fulfilment of the law is
enunciated here in a purely hypothetical manner, and can
never be realized (iii. 19, 20). Paul, it is said, is indicating
the abstract standard of judgment, which, in consequence of
man's sin, will never admit of rigorous application. But how
in this case explain the future " shall be justified " ? Comp.
also the phrase of ver. 27:" uncircumcision when it fulfils

' Tai; before tofjtov is found in T. R. with K L P ; the others omit it.
• T. E., with E K L, reada t»u befoie »'y^«.

204 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the law," words which certainly refer to concrete cases, and the
passage viii. 4, in which the apostle asserts that the hiKamfia
Tov vojiov, what the law declares righteous, is fulfilled in the
believer's life. It will certainly, therefore, be required of us
that we he righteous in the day of judgment if God is to
recognise and declare us to be such ; imputed righteousness is
the beginning of the work of salvation, the means of entrance
into the state of grace. But this initial justification, by re-
storing communion between God and man, should guide the
latter to the actual possession of righteousness— that is to say,
to the fulfilment of the law ; otherwise, this first justification
would not stand in the judgment (see on ver. 6). And hence
it is in keeping with Paul's views, whatever may be said by
an antinomian and unsound tendency, to distinguish two
justifications, the one initial, founded exclusively on faith,
the other final, founded on faith and its fruits. Divine
imputation beforehand, in order to he true, must neces-
sarily hecome true — that is to say, be converted into the
recognition of a real righteousness. But if the maxim of
ver. 13 is the rule of the divine judgment, this rule
threatens again to overturn the principle of divine imparti-
ality; for how can the Gentiles fulfil the law which they
do not possess ? Vv. 14 and 15 contain the answer to this
objection.

Vv. 14, 15. "For when Gentiles, which have not the law^
do ^ hy nature the things contained in the law, these, having not
the law, are a law unto themselves : for they show thereby the
work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
hearing witness to it, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing
or else excusing one another" — There are four principal ways
of connecting ver. 14 with what precedes.

1. Calvin goes back to ver. 12a: "The Gentiles will
yerish justly, though they have not the law (ver. 12) ; for they
have a law in their hearts which they knowingly violate '*
(ver. 14). The explanations of N'eander, de Wette, Hodge,
etc., are to the same effect. But the number of important
intermediate propositions and ideas intervening between this
and ver. 12a renders it unnatural to connect the "/or" of
ver. 14 with this declaration. Besides, was it necessary to
* T. 11., with E K L P, reads -rom ; but fc< A B read ^oiunv, and D G -^rotovn*.

CHAP. II. 14, 15. 205

prove to the Jews the righteousness of the punishment which
would be inflicted on the Gentiles !

2. Meyer connects the for with the immediately preceding
proposition, 1 3& : "It is only doers of the law who can he
justified, for this rule can he applied even to the Gentiles,
since they too have a law engraved on their hearts." The
connection is simple and logical. But can the apostle really
mean to say that a Gentile can obtain justification by observ-
ing the law of nature ? That is impossible. We should
require in that case to revert to the purely abstract explana-
tion of ver. 136, to regard it as a hypothetical maxim, and
consequently to take vv. 14, 15 as an abstract proof of an
impracticable maxim. These are too many abstractions.

3. Tholuck, Lange, Schaff likewise join the for with 136;
hut they hold at the same time that this for will be veritably
realized: "The doers of the law shall be justified, for God
will graciously take account of the relative observance of the
law rendered by the Gentiles " (here might be compared Matt.
XXV. 40, X. 41, 42); so Tholuck Or: "Those Gentiles,
partial doers of the law, will certainly come one day to the
faith of the gospel, by which they will be fully justified ;" so
Lange, Schaff. But these are expedients ; for there is nothing
in the text to countenance such ideas. In ver. 1 5, Paul takes
pains to prove that the Gentiles have the law, but not that
they observe it ; and about faith in the gospel there is not a
word. This could not possibly be the case if the thought
were an essential link in the argument.

4. The real connection seems to me to have been ex-
plained by PhiKppi. The for refers to the general idea of
ver. 13: " It is not having heard the law, as the Jews think,
but having observed it, which will justify ; for if the hearing
of it were enough, the Gentiles also could claim this advan-
tage, since positive features in their moral life testified to the
existence of a law engi-aved on their hearts, and the very
definite application of it which they are able to make,"
This connection leaves nothing to be desired ; and Meyer's
objection, that it is necessary in this case to pass over 136 in
order to connect the for with 13a, is false ; for the idea of
136 is purely restrictive: "The doers of the law shall alone
be justified," while the real affirmation is that of 13a; "Those

20€ JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

who have been only hearers shall not be justified/' It is on
this essential idea of ver. 13 that the for of ver. 14 bears. —
^'Orav, when it happens that. These are sporadic cases, happy
eventualities. — The word eOvr), Gentiles, has no article: "people
belonging to the category of the Gentiles." — The logical relation
included in the subjective negative firj is that which we should
express by : " without Imving the law," or : " tlioiigh they have
it not." — Ta rov vo/jlov, literally : the things which are of the
law, agreeable to its prescriptions. They do not observe the
precept as such, for they have it not ; but they fulfil its con-
tents ; for example, Neoptolemus in Philoctetes, when he
refuses to save Greece at the expense of a lie ; or Antigone,
when she does not hesitate to violate the temporary law of
the city to fulfil the eternal law of fraternal love ; or Socrates,
when he rejects the opportunity of saving his life by escaping
from prison, in order to remain subject to the magistrates.
Sophocles himself speaks of these eternal laws (ol del vo/jloi),
and contrasts this internal and divine legislation with the ever
changing laws of man. — ^vaei, ly nature, spontaneously, by
an innate moral instinct. This dative cannot be joined with
the preceding participle (exovra) ; it qualifies the verb Trotfj,
do ; the whole force of the thought is in this idea : do in-
stinctively what the Jew does in obedience to precepts. The
readings iroicocrcv and ttoloixtlv may be corrections of iroLfi
with the view of conforming the verb to the following pronoun
cvTOL ; the Byz. reading iroifi may also, however, be a correc-
tion to make the verb agree with the rule of neuter plurals.
In this case the plural of the verb is preferable, since Paul is
speaking not of the Gentiles en masse, but of certain individuals
among them. Hence also the following ovtol, these Gentiles.
This pronoun includes and repeats all the qualifications wliich
have just been mentioned in the first part of the verse ; comp.
the ovro<;, John i. 2. — The logical relation of the participle /a^
exovreg, " not having law," and of the verb elalv, " are law"
should be expressed by for ; not having law, they therefore
serve as a law to themselves. The negative fxr), placed above
hefore the participle and the object (rov vo/jlov), is here placed
letween the two. This separation is intended to throw the
object into relief : " This law (rov vofiov), for the very reason
that they have it not (jirj exovre^), they prove that they have

CHAP. II. 14, 15. i^7

it in another way." This delicate form of style shows with
what painstaking care Paul composed. But so fine a shade
can hardly be felt except in the original language. The
phrase : to be a law to oneself, is explained in ver. 1 5.

The descriptive pronoun 0LTive<i, " as people who," is meant
to introduce this explanation ; it is in consequence of what
is about to follow that Paul can affirm what he has just
said of them, ver. 14. The relation of the verb evheUvvv-
rat, show, and its object epyov, the work of the law, may
be thus paraphrased : " show the work of the law (as heing)
written;" which would amount to: prove that it is written.
But it is not even necessary to assume an ellipsis (o)? 6v),
What the Gentile shows in such cases is the law itself
written (as to its contents) within his heart, Paul calls
these contents the work of the law, because all the law com-
manded was meant to become work ; and he qualifies vofxov
by the article (the law), because he wishes to establish the
identity of the Gentile's moral instinct with the contents
of the Mosaic law strictly so called. But this phrase: the
work of the law, does not merely designate, like that of ver.
14, TCb Tov vofiov (the things agreeable to the law), certain
isolated acts. It embraces the whole contents of the law ; for
ver. 15 does not refer to the accidental fulfilment of some
good actions ; it denotes the totality of the moral law written
in the heart. The figure of a written law is evidently bor-
rowed from the Sinaitic law graven on the tables of stone.
The heart is always in Scripture the source of the instinctive
feelings from which those impulses go forth which govern the
exercise of the understanding and will. It is in this form oJ
lofty inspiration that the law of nature makes its appearance
in man. The plural : their heart, makes each individual the
seat of this sublime legislation. The last propositions of the
verse have embarrassed commentators not a little. They have
not sufficiently taken account of the starting-point of this
whole argument. St. Paul, according to the connection of
ver. 14 with ver. 13, does not wish merely to prove that the
Gentile possesses the law; he means to demonstrate that he
hears it, just as the Jew heard it at Sinai, or still hears it
every Sabbath in the synagogue (oKpoanqf;, hearer of the law,
ver. 13a). And to this idea the appendix refers which closes

208^ JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

ver. 15. That the Gentile has the law (is a law to himself),
is already demonstrated. But does he hear this law distinctly?
Does be give account of it to himself? If it were not so, he
would certainly remain inferior to the Jew who brings so
much sagacity to bear on the discussion of the sense and
various applications of the legal statute. But no ; the Gen-
tile is quite as clever as the Jew in this respect. He also
discusses the data of the moral inatinct which serves as his
guide. His conscience joins its approving testimony after-
hand to that of the moral instinct which has dictated a good
action; pleaders make themselves heard within, for and
against, before this tribunal of conscience, and these dis-
cussions are worth all the subtleties of Eabbinical casuistry. —
^vveiBrjaL^, the conscience (from avveL^evaL, to know with or
within oneself). This word, frequently used in the New
Testament, denotes the understanding (the vov<;, for it is a
knowing, elBevai,, which is in question), applied to the distinc-
tion of good and evil, as reason (the BtdvoLo) is the same vov<f
applied to the discernment of truth and falsehood. It is
precisely because this word denotes an act of knowledge that
it describes a new fact different from that of the moral instinct
described above. What natural impulse dictated without
reflection, conscience, studying it afterwards, recognises as a
good thing. Thus is explained the avv, with, in the compound
verb o-vfjLfiapTvpelv, to hear witness with another. Conscience
joins its testimony to that of the heart which dictated the
virtuous action by commending it, and proves thereby, as a
second witness, the existence of the moral law in the Gentile.
Volkmar: "Their conscience bears testimony besides the
moral act itself which already demonstrated the presence of
the divine law." Most reaUy, therefore, the Gentile has a
law, — law not only published and written, but heard and
understood. It seems to me that in the way in which the
apostle expresses this assent of the conscience to the law im-
planted within, it is impossible not to see an allusion to the
amen uttered aloud by the people after hearing the law of
Sinai, and which was repeated in every meeting of the syna-
gogue after the reading of the law. — But there is not only
hearing, there is even judging. The Eabbins debated in
opposite senses every kind of acts, real or imaginary. The

CHAP. II. 14, 15. 209

apostle follows up the comparison to the end. The soul of the
Gentile is also an arena of discussions. The Xoyta-fiou denote the
judgments of a moral nature which are passed by the Gentiles
on their own acts, either (as is most usually the case) acknow-
ledging them guilty {Karr^yopelv, accusing)^ or also sometimes
(such is the meaning of rj Kal; comp. ver. 14 : when it Jmppens
that . . .) pronouncing them innocent. Most commonly the
voice within says : That was bad ! Sometimes also this voice
becomes that of defence, and says : No, it was good ! Thus,
before this inner code, the different thoughts accuse or justify,
make replies and rejoinders, exactly as advocates before a
seat of judgment handle the text of the law. And all this
forensic debating proves to a demonstration not only that the
code is there, but that it is read and understood, since its
application is thus discussed. — ^The fiera^v dWrjXcDp, hetiveen
them {among themselves). Some, like Meyer, join this pronoun
with avTwv, the Gentiles ; he would refer it to the debates
carried on between Gentiles and Gentiles as to the moral worth
of an action. But it is grammatically more natural, and suits
the context better, to connect the pronoun between themselves
with Xoyta/jLwp, judgments. For this internal scene of dis-
cussion proves still more clearly than a debate of man with
man the fact of the law written in the heart. Holsten proposes
to understand the participle arvfifiapTvpouvToyv (borrowed from
av/uLfjLapTvpov<Trj<;) with Xo^ktjjlw v : " their conscience bearing
witness, and the judgments which they pass on one another's
acts in their mutual relations also bearing witness." This
construction is very forced, and it seems plain to us that
the two participles accusing or else excusing refer to the
thoughts, just as the participle hearing witness referred to their
conscience.

How can one help admiring here, on the one hand, the
subtle analysis whereby the apostle discloses in the Gentile
heart a real judgment- hall where witnesses are heard for and
against, then the sentence of the judge ; and, on the other hand,
that largeness of heart with which, after drawing so revolting
a picture of the moral deformities of Gentile life (chap, i.), he
brings into view in as striking a way the indestructible moral
elements, the evidences of which are sometimes irresistibly
presented even by this so deeply sunken life ?

GODET. 0 «0M. L

210 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Ver. 16. "In the dxiy wTien^ God shall judge the secrets of
men hy Jesus Christ according to my gospeU — In this final
proposition there is expressed and summed up the idea of the
whole preceding passage (from ver. 6), that of the final judg-
ment. But what is the grammatical and logical connection
of this dependent proposition ? It would seem natural to
■connect it with what immediately precedes (ver. 1 5), as Calvin
does : " Their inward thoughts condemn or approve them in
the day when "... for : " till the day when "... But this
sense would have required ew? tj)? ij/xepa?. Tholuck and
Philippi employ another expedient ; they understand : " and
that especially in the day when " . . . ; or : " and that more
completely still in the day when "... Others : " as tuill be
seen clearly in the day when" . . . But if Paul had meant
to say all that, he would have said it. Hofmann and Lange,
also connecting this proposition with ver. 15 (Hofmann
especially with ivheUvvvTai, manifest), regard the judgment
of ver. 16 as being only the internal and purely moral judg-
ment which is produced in the human conscience every time
the gospel is preached to man. They read Kplvet,, judges, and
not Kpivei, will judge. The phrase ; in the day when, would
therefore denote, not the last judgment, but every day that a
man hears the gospel for the first time. There is a context in
which this explanation would be possible ; but here, where
the dominant idea from ver. 6 has been the final judgment,
it is inadmissible. Besides, the phrase : hy Jesus Christ, is
not exactly suitable to any but the last judgment ; comp. the
words, Acts x. 42, xvii. 31; Matt. xxv. 31 et seq. ; and
especially the very similar phrases in 1 Cor. iv. 5. More-
over, ver. 29 can leave no doubt as to the apostle's meaning.
The only tolerable explanation, if it were wished to connect
ver. 16 with ver. 15, would be to take the verbs of ver. 15
as expressing the permanent present of the idea : " The mani-
festation of the presence of the law, written within their
hearts, tahes place, for: vnll certainly take place, in the day
when " . . . ; but this meaning of the verbs in the present in
ver. 15 could not be guessed till after reading ver. 16. The
time of the manifestation would have required to be indicated

* T. R., with almost all the mss., reads «* ^fcipit on ; B: »» «» nh'i"^ ; A : i»
nn%nt r«

CHAP. II. 16. 211

immediately to prevent a misunderstanding. Tlie only
natural connection of the words : in the day when, is to join
them to the end of ver. 13:" The doers of the law shall be
justified ... in the day when" ... No doubt vv. 14, 15
thus become a sort of parenthesis. But, notwithstanding,
Paul has not deviated for a moment from his principal thought.
These two verses contained an explanatory remark, such as
we now-a-days would put in a note ; it was intended to show
that the Gentiles also would be entitled to believe themselves
justified, if all that was necessary for this end were to possess
and hear a law without doing it. This false idea set aside,
Paul resumes the thread of his discourse at ver. 16. To
explain this verse, there is clearly no need of the two ex-
pedients proposed, the one by Ewald, to join it with ver. 4,
the other by Laurent, to regard it as an interpolation. — The
phrase : hiddeii things {secrets), is only to be explained by the
understood contrast to external works, legal or ceremonial, in
which the Jews put their confidence. None of those fine
externals of piety or morality will deceive the eye of God in
that day of truth. He will demand holiness of heart ; comp.
the expression, ver. 29 : o eV to5 Kpinrroj 'Iovhalo<;, the Jew
who is one inwardly, and : ths circumcision of the heart ; comp.
also, in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt. v. 20-48, and vi.
1-18. This idea was indispensable to complete what had
been said of judgment according to deeds. — The word men sets
the whole body of the judged face to face with the Judge,
and reminds the Jews that they also will be there, and wiU
form no exception. — At the first glance the phrase : according
to my gospel, is surprising, for the expectation of the final
judgment by Jesus Christ belongs to the apostolic teaching in
general, and not to PauVs gospel in particular. Nevertheless,
It is this apostle who, in consequence of his personal experi-
ence, and of the revelation which had been made to him, has
brought out most powerfully the contrast between the ep'ya
vofjiov, legal and purely external works, wanting the truly
moral principle of love, and good works, the fruits of faith
working by love (Eph. ii. 9, 1 0 ; Gal. v. 6). This antithesis
was one of the foundations of Paul's preaching. — The last
words : by Jesus Christ, recall all the sayings in which Jesus
announced His advent as judge. If it is really He who is

212 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

to preside in the great act of final judgment, it is plain that,
being such as He has made Himself known to us, He will not
be satisfied with a parade of external righteousness, and that
He will demand a holiness like that which He realized Him-
self, which, taking its origin in consecration of heart, extends
over the whole life.

The second part of the chapter, vv. 17-29, contains the
application of the principles laid down in the first. After
expressing himself in a general and more or less abstract way,
Paul addresses himself directly to the person whom he had
in view from ver. 1, and finally designates him by name.
Yet he still proceeds with the utmost caution ; for he knows
that he is giving a shock to inveterate prejudices, prejudices
which he long shared himself The way is slowly paved for
the conclusion which he wishes to reach ; hence the length of
the following sentence, which contains as it were the preamble
of the judgment to be pronounced.

Yv. 17—20. "Now if^ thou art called a Jew, and restest in
the law, and maJcest thy hoast of God, and knowest His will,
and canst discern the thiiigs that differ, being instructed out of
the law ; and art confident tlmt thou thyself art a guide of the
blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of
the foolish, a teacher of hales, because thou hast the form of
knowledge and of the tricth in the law " . . . — Instead of Ihe,
behold, which the T. E. reads, with a single Mj., we must
certainly read ei he, now if ; this is the natural form of
transition from principles to their application ; the other reading
seems to be a consequence of itacism (pronouncing et as t). —
Where are we to find the principal clause to which this now
if is subordinate ? Some, Winer for example, think that the
same construction continues as far as the beginning of ver. 21,
where it is abandoned on account of the length of the sentence,
and where an entirely new proposition begins. But we must
at least meet again somewhere in the sequel with the idea
which was in the apostle's mind when he began with the
words nA)w if. Meyer regards ver. 2 1 itself as the principal
clause; he understands the ovv, therefore, as a particle of
recapitulation. But, in an argument like this {now if, ver.

» T. S. reads, with L : *i« (beliold) : the other authorities : u h {now if).

CHAP. II. 17-20. 213

17), this meaning of therefore is unnatural. It is better than,
with Hofmann, to hold that the series of propositions dependent
on now if is prolonged to the end of ver. 24, where the
principal proposition resulting from all these considerations
is understood as a self-evident consequence : wliat good in
this case (that of such sins, vv. 21-24) will accrue to thee
from all those advantages (vv. 17-20) ? It is to this under-
stood conclusion, which we would replace with lacuna-points
i( . . . ), that the for of ver. 2 5 very naturally refers. By this
figure of rhetoric (aposiopesis) the apostle dispenses with
expressing a conclusion himself, which must escape spon-
taneously from the conscience of every reader.

The propositions dependent on "now if" taken together,
embrace two series of four verses each ; the one, that from
vv. 17—20, is intended to enumerate all the advantages of
which the Jew boasts; the other, from vv. 21-24, contrasts
the iniquities of his conduct with those advantages.

The advantages are distributed into three catejijories.
1. The gifts of God, ver. 17. 2. The superior capabilities which
these gifts confer on the Jews, ver. 18. 3. The i^ccrt which he
somewhat pretentiously thinks himself thereby called to play
towards other nations, vv. 19, 20. There is something slightly
ironical in this accumulation of titles on which the Jew bases
the satisfaction which he feels as he surveys himself

Ver. 17. The name Jew, ^lovhalo^, is probably not used
without allusion to its etymological meaning : Jehoudah, the
'praised one. The preposition iirl, which enters into the com-
position of the verb, converts this name into a real title. But
Israel possesses more than a glorious name ; it has in its hands
a real gift : tJie law. Here is a manifest sign of the divine
favour on which it may consequently rest. Finally, this token
of special favour makes God its God, to the exclusion of all
other nations. It has therefore whereof to glory in God. To
the gradation of the three substantives: Jew, law, God, that of
the three verbs perfectly corresponds : to call oneself, to rest,
to glory.

Hence there result (ver. 18) two capabilities which dis-
tinguished the Jew from every other man. He knows God's
will, and so succeeds in discerning what to others is confused.
One is always entitled to be proud of knowing ; but when

214 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

that knowing is of tlw will, that is to say, the absolute anJ
perfect will which ordains all, and judges of all sovereignly,
such a knowledge is an incomparable advantage. By this
knowledge of the divine will the Jew can discern and
appreciate (BoKOfid^eiv) the most delicate shades of the moral
life. — Ta Biacpepovra might signify the things that are better
(meliora probare), from the meaning of surpass, which is often
that of the verb Zta^epeLv. But here it is better to translate :
the things that differ (from the sense of differing, which is
also that of Bta<j)€p€iv) ; for the apostle seems to be alluding
to those discussions of legal casuistry in which the Jewish
schools excelled, as when the two eminent doctors Hillel and
Schammai gravely debated the question, whether it was law-
ful to eat an egg laid by a hen on the Sabbath day. — The
last words of the verse : instructed out of the law, indicate
the source of that higher faculty of appreciation. The term
KaTTT^ovfjLevo^, from Karrjx^^^cit, to be penetrated by a sound,
makes each Jew law personified.

From this knowledge and faculty of appreciation flows the
part which the Jew claims in regard to other men, and which
is described in vv. 19, 20 with a slight touch of ridicule.
The first four terms set forth the moral treatment to which
the Jew, as the born physician of mankind, subjects his
patients, the Gentiles, to their complete cure. The term
TreTToiOa^, tJioio art confident, describes his pretentious assur-
ance. And first, he takes the poor Gentile by the hand as
one does a blind man, offering to guide him : then he opens
his eyes, dissipating his darkness by the light of revelation ;
then he rears him, as one would bring up a being yet without
reason; finally, when through all this care he has come to
the stage of the Utile child, vrj'mof; (ivho cannot speak; this was
the term used by the Jews to designate proselytes ; see
Tholnck), he initiates him into the full knowledge of the
truth, by becoming his teaclur. — The end of the verse serves
to explain the reason of this ministry to the Gentile world
which the Jew exercises. He possesses in the law the pre-
cise sketch {jiop^mci^), the exact outline, the rigorous formula
of the knowledge of things which men should have (the idea
which every one should form of them), and of the truth, that
is to say, the moral reality or substance of goodness. Know-

CHAP. II. 21-24. 215

ledge is the subjective possession of truth in itself. The Jew
possesses in the law not only the truth itself, but its exact
formula besides, by means of which he can convey this truth
to others. We need not then, with Oltramare, make these
last words an appendix, intended to disparage the teaching of
the Jew : " though thou hast but the shadow of knowledge.'*
The drift of the passage demands the opposite sense: "as
possessing the truth in its precise formula."

Vv. 21-24. "And if, then, thou who teachest another, teachest
not thyself? if preaching a man should not steal, thou stealest?
if, while saying a man should not commit adidtery, thou com-
mittest adultery ? if, . ahhorHn^ idols, thou committest sacrilege ?
if thou that makest thy toast of the law, dislionourest God through
Ireahing the law ? for the n£tme of God is hlasphemed among
the Gentiles through you, as it is written " . . . — On the one
side, then, the Jews are proud of the possession of their law ;
but, on the other, how do they put it in practice ? It is to
set forth this contradiction that the second series of pro-
positions is devoted, vv. 21-24. The ovv, then, ironically
contrasts the real practical fruit produced in the Jews by their
knowledge of the law, and that which such an advantage
should have produced. The term teach includes all the
honourable functions toward the i-est of the world which the
Jew has just been arrogating. *0 BiBdaKcov: Thou, the so
great teacher ! — The apostle chooses two examples in the
second table of the law, theft and adultery ; and two in the
first, sacrilege and dishonour done to God. Theft compre-
hends all the injustices and deceptions which the Jews allowed
themselves in commercial affairs. Adultery is a crime which
the Talmud brings home to the three most illustrious Eabbins,
Akiba, Mehir, and Eleazar. Sensuality is one of the pro-
minent features of the Semitic character. The pillage of
sacred objects cannot refer to anything connected with the
worsliip celebrated at Jerusalem ; such, for example, as refusal
to pay the temple tribute, or the offering of maimed victims.
The subject oi the proposition: thoto who abhorrest idols, proves
clearly that the apostle has in view the pillage of idol temples.
The meaning is : " Thy horror of idolatry does not go the
length of preventing thee from hailing as a good prize the
precious objects which have been used in idolatrous worship,

216 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

when thou canst make them thine own." The Jews probahly
did not pillage the Gentile temples themselves; but they
filled the place of resetters; comp. besides, Acts xix. 37. The
dishonour done to God arises from their greed of gain, their
deceits and hypocrisy, which were thoroughly known to the
Gentile populations among whom they lived. Paul weaves
the prophetic rebuke into the tissue of his own language, but
by the as it is written he reminds his readers that he is
borrowing it from the inspired Scriptures. His allusion is to
Isa. lii. 5 (which resembles our verse more in the letter than
the sense), and to Ezek. xxxvi. 18—24 (which resembles it
more in the sense than in the letter).

We have regarded the whole passage, vv. 17-24, as de-
pendent on the conjunction el Be, 71010 if, ver. 17: "Now if
thou callest thyself . . . (vv. 17-20) ; and if teaching so and
so, thou . . . (vv. 21-24)." Thereafter, the principal clause
is easily expressed as a proposition to be understood between
vv. 24, 25: "What advantage will this law be to thee, of
which thou makest thy boast before others, and which thou
dost violate thyself with such effrontery ? " For, in fine,
according to the principle laid down, ver. 13, it is not those
who Jcnow the law, but those who do it, who shall be pro-
nounced righteous by the judgment of God. The idea under-
stood, which we have just expressed, is that to which the for
of ver. 25 refers: "For it is wholly in vain for thee, if thou
art disobedient, to reckon on circumcision to exculpate thee.
A disobedient Jew is no better before God than a Gentile, and
an obedient Gentile becomes in God's sight a true Jew." Such
is the meaning of the following passage, vv. 25-29.

Vv. 25-27. "For circiomcision verily proflteth, if thou keep
the law : hut if thou he a hreaJcer of the law, thy circumcision
is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep
the righteous ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision
he counted for circumcision ? And shall not uncircumcision
which is hy nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who with
the letter and circumcision dost transgress the lawV — Paul
knocks from under the Jew the support which he thought he
had in his theocratic position, with its sign circumcision. We
have seen it ; the adage of the Rabbins was : " All the cir-
cumcised have part in the world to come," as if it were really

CHAP. II. 25-27. 217

enough to be a Jew to be assured of salvation. ITow, circum-
cision had been given to Israel as a consecration to circumcision
of heart J an engagement to holiness, and not as a shelter from
judgment in favour of disobedience and pollution. Taken
then in this sense, and according to the mind of God, it had
its use ; but employed in the Eabbinical sense, it formed only
an external wall of separation requiring to be overturned.
The prophets never ceased to work in this direction ; comp.
Isa. i. 10-15 and Ixvi. 1 et seq. — Feyove, strictly: "has
become, and remains henceforth uncircumcision," in the eyes
of God the righteous judge.

Vv. 26, 27 describe the opposite case: the transformation
of the obedient Gentile into a Jew, according to the judgment
of God. This transformation, being the logical consequence
of the preceding, is connected by o^v, therefore, with ver. 25.
— The apostle is not now speaking, as in vv. 14, 15, of a
simple sporadic observance of legal duties. The phrase is
more solemn : keeping the just ordinances of the law (BiKalcofia,
all that the law declares righteous). In viii. 4, the apostle
uses a similar expression to denote the observance of the law
by the Christian filled with the Holy Spirit. How can he
here ascribe such an obedience to a Gentile ? Pliilippi thinks
he has in view those many proselytes whom Judaism was
making at this time among the Gentiles. Meyer and others
seek to reduce the meaning of the phrase to that of ver. 14.
This second explanation is impossible, as we have just seen ;
and that of Philippi falls to the grc»und before the preceding
expressions of the apostle, which certainly contain more than
can be expected of a proselyte {keep, fidfil the law, <f)v\d(ra-6Lv,
reXelv rov vo/jlov, vv. 26, 27). The comparison of viii. 4
shows the apostle's meaning. He refers to those many Gentiles
converted to the gospel who, all uncircumcised as they are,
nevertheless fulfil the law in virtue of the spirit of Christ, and
thus become the time Israel, the Israel of God, Gal. vi. 16.
Paul expresses himself in abstract terms, because here he has
to do only with the principle, and not with the means by
which it is realized ; compare what we have said on vv. 7,
10. The future XoyLO-drjaeTai, will he counted, transports us
to the hour of judgment, when God, in order to declare a man
righteous, will demand that he he so in reality.

218 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

We might begin ver. 27 as an affirmative proposition :
and so He will judge thee. But perhaps it is more in keep-
ing with the lively tone of the piece to continue in ver. 27
the interrogation of ver. 26, as we have done in our transla-
tion: "And so (in virtue of this imputation) will not He
judge thee" . . . ? The thought is analogous to Luke xi. 31,
32, and Matt. xiL 41, 42, though the case is different For
there it is Gentiles who condemn the Jews by the example of
their repentance and their love of truth ; here, it is the case
of Christians of Gentile origin condemning the Jews by their
fulfilment of the law. — Ostervald and Oltramare substitute for
judge, used by the apostle, the term condemn. This is wrong ;
for the claim of the Jews is to escape, not only from con-
demnation, but from judgment ; and it is bitter for them to
hear, not only that they shall be judged like the Gentiles, but
that they shall be judged hj them. — Tov vofxov reXelv, to fulfil
the law, is a phrase expressing real and persevering fulfilment.
The love which the gospel puts into the believer's heart is in
fact the fulfilment of the law, Eom. xiii. 1 0. — The preposition
Bid, strictly (across the length of) : thorough, here denotes, as
it often does, the state, the circumstances in which an act is-
£tccomplished ; comp. 2 Cor. ii. 4 ; 1 Tim. ii. 15; Heb. ii. 1 5.
So : " in full possession of the letter and circumcision."

This double transformation of the disobedient Jew into a
Gentile, and of the obedient Gentile into a Jew, in the judg-
ment of God, is explained and justified by vv. 28 and 29.

Vv. 28, 29. "For he is not a Jetv, ivhich is one outwardly ;
neither is that circumcision, which is outivard in the fiesh : hit
he is a Jew, which is one invjardly ; and circumcision is of the
heart, hy the spirit, and not hy tlie letter ; whose 2)raise is Twt of
men, hut of God," — The double principle laid down here by
Paul was the sum of prophetic theology ; comp. Lev. xxvi. 41 ;
Deut. X. 16; Jer. iv. 14; Ezek. xliv. 9. And hence it is
that the apostle can make it the basis of his argument. Ver.
28 justifies the degradation of the Jew to the state of a
Gentile, proclaimed in ver. 25 ; and ver. 29 the elevation of
the Gentile to the rank of a Jew, proclaimed in vv. 26 and
27. The two words which justify this double transformation
are iv tw Kpvmw, in secret, imvardly, and Kaphia^, iv irvev-
MttT*, of the heart, hy the spirit. For if there is a principle ta

CHAP. II. 28, 29. 219'

be derived from the whole of the Old Testament, it is that
God has regard to the heart (1 Sam. xvi. 7). Paul himself
referred in ver. 1 6 to the fact that in the day of judgment by
Jesus Christ, it would be the hidden things of men which
would form the essential ground of His sentence. There is-
only one way of explaining naturally the grammatical con-
struction of these two verses. In ver. 28, we must borrow
the two subjects 'IovBato<; and TrepcTOfiy from the predicate •,.
and in ver. 29, the two predicates 'lovSatof; {icrri) and 7re/)A-
TOfii] (iari) from the subject. — The complement Kaphia<i, of
the heart, is the gen. object: the circumcision which cleanses
the heart ; the clause ev Trvevfiarv, in spirit, denotes the
means : by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the superior force
whicli, by transforming the feelings of the heart, produces
true inw^ard purification. The letter, on the contrary, is an
outward rule which does not change either the heart or the
will ; comp. vii. 6. Meyer thinks we should take ov, of
which, as a neuter, referring to Judaism in general. But ta
what purpose would it be to say that the praise of Judaism
comes not from men, but from God ? That was sufficiently
obvious of itself, since it was God who had established it,,
and all the nations detested it; we must therefore connect
this pronoun with the Jew which precedes, and even with the
feminine term circumcision, which is used throufdiout this
whole piece for the person circumcised. — The word praise is
again an allusion to the etymological meaning of the word
'Iovhalo<i, Jcio (see on ver. 17) ; comp. Gen. xlix. 8. God, who
reads the heart, is alone able to allot with certainty the title
Jev) in the true sense of the word — that is to say, one praised.
The idea of praise coming from God is opposed to that whole
Jewish vainglory which is detailed w. 17-20. — What a
remarkable parallelism is there between this whole passage
and tlie declaration of Jesus, Matt. viii. 11, 12: "Many
shall come from the east and from the west, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of heaven," etc. . . . And yet there
is nothing to indicate imitation on Paul's part. The same
truth creates an original form for itself in the two cases.

Yet the apostle anticipates an objection to the truth which
he has just developed. If the sinful Jew finds himself in
the same situation in regard to the wrath of God as the sinful

220 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Gentile, what remains of the prerogative which divine election
seemed to assure to him ? Before going further, and drawing
the general conclusion following from the two preceding pas-
sages, i. 18-32 and ii. 1-29, Paul feels the need of obviating
this objection ; and such is the aim of the following passage.

SIXTH PASSAGE (III. 1-8).

Jewish Prerogative does not imply Exemption from Judgment.

The order of thought in this piece, one of the most diffi-
cult, perhaps, in the Epistle, is as foUows : —

1. If the Jew is judged absolute^, as the Gentiles are,
what advantage has he over them ? Answer : The possession
of the divine oracles (w. 1, 2).

2. But if this possession has not realized the end which it
was intended to serve (the faith of Israel in the Messiah), is not
the faithfulness of God toward this people annulled ? Answer:
By no means ; it will rather be glorified thereby (vv. 3, 4).

3. But if God makes use of human sin to glorify Himself,
how can He yet make sinners the objects of His wrath ?
Answer: If the advantage which God derives from the sin
of man prevented Him from punishing sinners, the final judg-
ment would become impossible (vv. 5-8).

It is obvious that the reasoning is consecutive, even very
compact, and that there is no need of expressly introducing
an opponent, as many commentators have done. Paul does
not here make use of the formula : Bid some one will say.
The objections arise of themselves from tlie affirmations, and
Paul puts them in a manner to his own account.

Vv. 1,2. " What then is the advantage of the Jew ? or icliat
is the profit of circumcision ? Much every way : foremost} in
that unto them were committed the oracles of God!' — It was a
thing generally granted, that the elect people must have an
advantage over the Gentiles ; hence the article to, the, before
the word advantage. The Greek term irepLo-aov literally
denotes what the Jews have nfiore than otiiers. If they
ai'e judged in the same category as these, as the apostle in

' B b E G Syr*''» It»»»i omit the yap, which the T. K., vnth tne other docu-
Oifcuts, reads after /tti>.

CHAP. III. 1, 2. 221

chap, ii.- and particularly in vv. 25-29, had just shown, what
have they then more than they ? The ovv, then, precisely
expresses this relation. One might infer from what precedes
that every advantage of the Jew was denied. — The second
question bears on the material symbol of Israel's election:
circumcision. "Will the people whom God has elected and
marked with the seal of this election be treated exactly like
the rest of the world V This objection is of the same nature
as that which would be made in our day by a nominal Chris-
tian, if, when put face to face with God's sentence, he were to
ask what advantage there accrues to him from his creed and
baptism, if they are not to save him from condemnation ?

Ver. 2. Though the advantage of the Jew does not consist
in exemption from judgment, he has an advantage, neverthe-
less, and it is very great. — The adjective irokv, which we
have translated by much, properly signifies numerous. As
neuter, it is connected with the subject of the first proposi-
tion of ver. 1 : tlie aJ.vantage ; the second question was in
reality only an appendix calculated to strengthen the first. —
By adding every ivay, Paul means that the advantage is not
only considerable, but very varied, " extending to all the
relations of life " (Morison). — Of these numerous and varied
advantages he quotes only one, which seems to him, if one
may so speak, central. Commentators like Tholuck, Philippi,
Meyer, suppose that when the apostle wrote the word irpwrov,
firstly, he purposed to enumerate all the other advantages, but
that he was diverted from fully expressing his thought. To
exemplify this style there are quoted, besides i. 8 et seq.,
which we have had already before us, 1 Cor. vi. 12, 13, and
xi. 18 et seq. But the apostle has too logical a mind, and
his writings bear the mark of too earnest elaboration, to allow
us to admit such breaches of continuity in their texture. In
the view of a sound exegesis, the passages quoted prove abso-
hitely nothing of the kind. Others think that we may here
give to firstly the meaning of chiefly ; but the Greek has
words for this idea. The preceding words : every way, sug-
gest the translation ; they signify : " I might mention many
things under this head ; but I shall confine myself to one
which is in the front rank." This form of expression, far
from indicating that he purposes to mention others, shows, Oft

222 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the contrary, why he will not mention them. They all flow
from that which he proceeds to indicate. Neither has the
particle fiev (from fievecv, to remain) its ordinary counterpart
(8e) in the sequel It therefore means : " Though this advan-
tage were the only one, it nevertheless remains perfectly real.'*
The yap, for, is omitted by several Mjj. of both families, and
by the old Vss. If it were kept, the otl which follows would
require to take the meaning of because, which is unnatural. —
It is better, therefore, to reject it, and to translate on by iii
^^a^.-^This advantage, which takes the lead of all the others,
so that after it, it is useless to announce them also, is the
dignity granted to the Jews of being the dejoositaries of the
divine oracles. The subject of eTrca-revdija-av is ol ^lovhaloi
understood, according to a well-known Greek construction ;
comp. 1 Cor. ix. 17. The meaning of the verb in the passive
is strictly : " to be esteemed faithful, so that men wiU confide
to you a deposit." — The deposit here is the divine oracles.
The term \6yiov, oracle, has a graver meaning than X6709,
vjord, of which it is not at all a diminutive (Philippi) ; for it
comes from the adjective \07i09, eloquent. It always denotes,
even in the classics, a divine saying; so Acts vii. 38, the
law of Moses; Heb. v. 12, the gospel revelation; 1 Pet.
iv. 11, the immediate divine communications with which the
•church was then favoured. In our passage, where the subject
in question is the privilege granted to the Jews over the
<jrentiles, the word must be taken as referring to the whole
Old Testament ; but it is nevertheless true that the apostle
thinks specially of the Messianic promises (Volkmar). — If Paul
had intended to set forth the beneficial religious and moral
influence exercised by these divine revelations on the national,
domestic, and individual life of the Israelites, it is evident that
he would have had a multitude of things to say. But it is
equally clear that he would have been thus diverted from the
object of this discussion. And hence he confines himself to
establishing the point from which all the rest flows. This is
the first phase of the discussion. — But an objection immediately
rises : Has not this advantage, the possession of the Messianic
promises, been rendered void by Israel's unbelief? Here
begins the second phase.

Vv. 3, 4. " For what shall we say ? If some did not believe.

CHAP. III. 3, 4. 223

shall their unlelief make the faith of God without effect ? Let
it not be : yea, let God be found true, and every Qna7i a liar ; as
it ^ is written : That Thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings,
and mightest overcome ^ when Tlwu art judged" — Here again
Paul is not introducing any opponent ; the objection which he
states springs logically from the fact he has just affirmed. —
It would be possible to put the point of interrogation after the
word TLvh, some: "For what are we to think, if some did
not believe ? " But we think it preferable to put the point
after fydp, for : " For what is the fact ? " and to connect the
proposition : " If some did not believe," with the following
question (see the translation). Paul likes these short questions
in the course of discussion ; for wliat ? but what ? fitted as
they are to rouse attention. If he here uses the particle for
instead of but, it is because he wishes from the first to repre-
sent the objection as no longer subsisting, but already resolved.
— What is the unbelief of the Jews which the apostle has
here in view ? According to some, Philippi for example, it
is their old unbelief in respect of the ancient revelations.
But the aorist rjirlarrjaav, did not believe, refers to a particular
historical fact rather than a permanent state of things, such
as Jewish unbelief had been under the old covenant. Besides,
the faithfulness of God toward Israel, when formerly unbeliev-
ing and disobedient, was a fact which could not be called in
question, since God by sending them the Messiah had never-
theless fulfilled all His promises to them in a way so striking.
Finally, the future will it make void? does not suit this
sense ; Paul would rather have said : did it make void ? The
subject in question, therefore, is a positive fact, and one which
has just come to pass, and it is in relation to the consequences
of this fact that the question of God's faithfulness arises.
What is this fact ? We find it, with the majority of com-
mentators, in Israel's rejection of Jesus, its Messiah ; and we
might even add : in the persevering rejection of apostolic
preaching. The hostile attitude of Israel in relation to the
gospel was now a decided matter. — The pronoun rti/e?, some,
may seem rather weak to denote the mass of the people who

^ X B read xetiaTtp instead of Ka.6ui.

* T. R., with B G K L, reads mxnvm ; ti A D E : viKnaui (the same variation la
found in the LXX.).

224 .TUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

had rejected the Messiah ; but this pronoun denotes a part
of the whole irrespectively of the proportion. In chap. xi. 1 7,
the unbelieving Jews are called " some of the branches ; " in
Heb. iii 16, the whole people, Caleb and Joshua only ex-
cepted, are described by this same pronoun ; comp. 1 Cor. x. 7.
The phrase of Plato is also cited : Tive<i koX ttoXXol ye. Mori-
son rightly says : " Many are only some, when they are not
the whole." — Questions introduced by a fii^ always imply an
answer more or less negative ; so it is in this case : " This
unbelief will not, however, make void " . . . ? Answer under-
stood : " Certainly not." Hence the for at the beginning of
the verse, which referred to this foreseen negative answer. —
The verb KaTapyeiv, which we have translated by make void,
signifies literally : to deprive of action, or efficacy ; and the
phrase irlarL^; rod Oeov, in contrast to airKnla, unbelief, can
only designate the faithfulness of God Himself, in a manner
His good faith. This perfection consists in the harmony
between God's words and deeds, or between His past acts and
His future conduct ; it is his adherence to order in the line of
conduct followed by Him. The question thus signifies : " Can
Jewish unbelief in regard to the Messiah invalidate God's
faithfulness to His people ? " The question might be asked
in this sense : " If the Jews have not taken advantage of the
salvation which the Messiah brought to them, will it follow
that God has not really granted them all He had promised ?
Will any one be able to accuse Him of having failed in His
promises ? " The sense may also be : " Will He not remain
faithful to His word in the future, even though after such an
act on their part He should reject them ? " For, in fine, His
word does not contain promises only, but threatenings ; comp.
2 Tim. ii. 13 : " If we believe not. He abideth faithful " (by
punishing unbelief, as He has said). — The first of these mean-
ings does not agree naturally with the future KarapyTjaet, will
make void, which points us not to the past, but to the future.
The second might find some countenance in ver. 4, where the
example of David's sin and punishment is referred to, as well
as in the term righteousness (taken in the sense of retributive
justice) and in the term ivrath, ver. 5. Yet the very severe
meaning which in this case must be given to the phrase God's
faithfulness, would not be sufliciently indicated We are led

CHAP. III. 3, 4. 225

to another and more natural meaning : " From tlie fact that
Israel has rejected the Messianic salvation, does it follow that
God will not fulfil all His promises to them in the future ?
By no means ; His faithfulness will find a means in the very
unbelief of His people of magnifying itself." The apostle
has before him the perspective, which he will follow to its
termination in chap, xi., that of the final salvation of the
Jews, after their partial and temporary rejection shall have
been instrumental in the salvation of the Gentiles.

The negative answer to this question, as we have seen, was
already anticipated by the interrogative firj. When expressing
it (ver. 4), the apostle enhances the simple negative. He ex-
claims : " Let that not he (the faithfulness of God made void) ! "
And to this forcible negation he adds the counter af&rmation :
" May the contrary be what shall happen : truth, nothing but
truth, on God's side ! All the lying, if there is any, on man's
side ! " — There is an antithesis between firj yevono, that be
far removed (the chalilah of the Hebrews), and the ^ivkaQoa Be,
but let this come to pass ! The imperative ^iveaQw, may he
or it become, is usually understood in the sense : " May God
be recognised as true " . . . ! But the term ylveadat,, to become,
refers more naturally to the fact in itself than to the recogni-
tion of it by man. The veracity of God becomes, is revealed
more and more in history by the new effects it produces. But
this growing realization of the true God runs parallel with
another realization, that of human falsehood, which more and
more displays man's perversity. Falsehood denotes in Scrip-
ture that inward bad faith wherewith the human heart resists
known and understood moral good. The apostle seems to
allude to the words of Ps. cxvi. 11 : "I said in my haste : All
men are liars." Only what the Psalmist uttered with a feeling
of bitterness, arising from painful personal experiences, Paul
affirms with a feeling of composure and profound humiliation
in view of the sin of his people. He says even all men, and
not only all Israelites; all men rather than God. If the
principle of falsehood is realized in history, let all that bears the
name of man be found capable of falseness, rather than that a
tittle of this pollution should attach to the divine character.
!For the idea of faithfulness (ver. 3) there is substituted that
of veracity, as for the idea of unbelief that of falsehood. In

GODET. P ROM. I.

226 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

both cases the second is wider than the first, and includes it.

— ^The conflict between the promises of God and His veracity,

raised by the present fact of Israel's unbelief, must issue in

the glory of the divine faithfulness. This necessary result is

expressed by the apostle by means of a saying of David,

uttered on the occasion of one of his gravest infidelities,

Vs. li. 6 : " That according as it is written ..." Alarm has

been taken at the that ; it has been sought to make it a

simple so that (Osterv., Oltram.), as if what was spoken of

were an effect, not an end. The wish was to avoid making

David say he had sinned in order that God might be glorified.

It cannot really be supposed that David means to ascribe to

God responsibility for his trespass in any degree whatever, and

that in a passage where he expressly affirms that the purity

of the divine character must appear with new brightness on

occasion of it. Hengstenberg and after him Philippi, have

recourse to the distinction between the sinful will of David,

which belongs wholly to him, and the form in which his sin

was outwardly realized, a form which falls under the direction

of Providence. But this distinction, which the theologian

can make, could not present itself to the mind of David at

the time, and in the disposition in which he composed his

psalm. To explain the that, we have simply to take into

account the manner in which David expresses himself in the

foregoing words. He had said not only : " I have sinned,"

but : " I have sinned against Thee ; " not only : " I have done

the evil," but : " I have done that which is displeasing in Thy

si^JU," It is with the two ideas against Thee and what is

disfpleasing in Thy sight, which aggravate the confession : I

have sinntd, that the that is connected. David means : ^' I

was clear as to what 1 was doing ; Thou hadst not left me

ignorant that when sinning I was sinning against Thy person,

which is outraged by such misdeeds, and that I was doing

what Thou hatest, — that if, in spite of this knowledge, I

nevertheless did it. Thou mightest be pure in the matter, and

that the guiltiness might belong to me only." This idea of

the knowledge of the divine will possessed by David, is that

which is anew forcibly expressed in ver. 6 : " Thou didst teach

me wisdom in the hidden part." God had instructed and

warned David that if he sinned, be might be the only guilty

CHAP. III. 5, 6. 22*7

one, and might not be able to accuse God. The that has
therefore nearly the same meaning as the : " to the end they
might be without excuse," i. 20. We thus recognise the
analogy of situation between David and Israel, which leads
the apostle to quote these words here. Israel, the depositary
of the divine oracles, had been faithfully instructed and
warned, that if later, in spite of these exceptional revelations,
giving themselves up to the falsehood (voluntary blindness)
of their own hearts, they came to miss recognising the Mes-
siah, they should not be able to accuse God for their rejection,
but should be declared, to the honour of the divine holiness,
the one party guilty of the catastrophe which might follow. —
The words : " that Thou may est be justified in or hy Thy words,"
signify : " that Thou mayest be acknowledged righteous, both in
respect of the warnings which Thou hast given, and in the
sentences which Thou wilt pronounce (on David by the mouth
of Natlian, on Israel by their rejection)." In the Hebrew,
the second proposition refers exclusively to those sentences
which God pronounces ; for it is said : " and that Thou mayest
be found pure when Thou judgest." But the LXX. have trans-
lated : " that Thou mayest be victor (gain Thy case) when Thou
art judged," or: "when Thou hast a case at law." It is
probably this last meaning to which the apostle adapts his
woi*ds, giving the verb Kpiveadai the middle sense, which it
has in so many passages ; for example. Matt. v. 40 ; 1 Cor.
vi. 1, 6 : " that Thou mayest gain Thy case if Thou hast one
to plead." Paul has obviously in view the accusation against
God's faithfulness which might be raised from the fact of
the unbelief and rejection of the chosen people.

But this very thought, that the veracity of God will come
forth magnified from Israel's unbelief, raises a new objection,
the examination of which forms the third phase of this dis-
cussion.

Vv. 5, 6. ''But if our unrighteousness commend the
righteousness of God, what shall we say ? Is not God un-
righteous when He inflicts wrath ? I speak as a man, TJiat
he far : for then how shall God judge the world ? " — From the
that, ver. 4 it seemed to follow that God wills the sin of man
for His own glory. But in that case, has He the right to
condemn an act from which He reaps advantage, and to be

228 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

angry with him who commits it ? This ohjection might he
put in the mouth of a Jew, who, placing himself at Paul's
view-point, and hearing him say that Israel's rejection of the
Messiah will glorify God's faithfulness, and conduce to the
accomplishment of His plans, judged God highly unjust for
being angry with Israel on account of such conduct. Our
unhelief would then signify the unbelief of us Jews. But
the contrast which prevailed in ver. 4 was that between God
and every man, and not between Jew and Gentile. It is
therefore more natural to apply the term our unrighteousness
to human unrighteousness in general, undoubtedly with special
application to the Jewish unrighteousness which gives rise to
the objection. It is from the depths of the human conscience
that the apostle fetches his question. Is it righteous on God's
part to judge an act which He turns to His own advantage ?
As Paul had previously substituted the idea of truth for that
of (God's) faithfulness, he here substitutes righteousness for
truth. This term in its most general sense denotes the
perfection in virtue of which God cannot become guilty of
any wrong toward any being whatever. Now this is what
He seems to do to the sinner, when He at once condemns and
makes use of him. It is from the word : that Thou mayest be
acknowledged righteous, ver. 4, that Paul derives the term
righteousness, ver. 5. — SvpLo-rdvai, strictly : to cause to stand
together, whence : to confirm, to establish. The question t*
if'ovfjLev, what shall we say ? does not occur in any other letter
of the apostle's ; but it is frequent in this (iv. 1, vi. 1, vii. 1,
viii. 31, ix. 14, 30). It serves to fix the mind of the reader
on the state of the question, at the point which the discussion
has reached. If it had been in the interest of a certain school
of criticism to deny the authenticity of the Epistle to the
Komans, it is easy to see what advantage it would have taken
of this form so exclusively characteristic of this treatise. — The
interrogative form with yLt?^ assumes, as it always does, that
the answer will be negative: "God is not, however, unjust
in "... ? It is certainly the apostle who is speaking, and
not an opponent ; for the objection is thus expressed in the
outset as one resolved in the negative. The phrase : to inflict
wrath, alludes to ii. 4, 5, where the apostle threatened Israel
with divine wrath against the day of wrath ; but the question

CHAP. III. 5, 6. 229

is lievortheless put in a perfectly general sense. — 'There is
always something revolting to a conscience enlightened from
•^hove, in joining the epithet unrighteous with the word God,
even hypothetically. This is why Paul adds : / speak as a
man. By man he here understands man left to himself and
his own reason, speaking with lightness and presumption of
the ways of God. Some commentators would join this explana-
tory remark with what follows. But the following exclamation
(jirj yepoLTo, let it not he so), is absolutely opposed to this.

The argument of ver. 6, according to Meyer, is this : How
would God be disposed to judge the world, if there was no
righteousness in Him ? For the troublesome consequences of
sin could not impel Him to it, since He can turn them to
good. It must be confessed that this would be a singularly
wiredrawn argument. To go to prove God's righteousness by
the fact of the judgment, while it is the fact of the judgment
which rests on divine righteousness ! If the apostle had
reasoned thus, Ruckert would have been right in declaring
that the argument was insufficient. But the reasoning is
quite different. Meyer might have found it clearly stated by
Olshausen : " If God's drawing a good result from a bad deed
were enough to destroy His right to judge him who com-
mitted it, the final judgment would evidently become im-
possible ; for as God is always turning to good the evil which
men have devised, every sinner could plead in his defence :
M}'^ sin has after all served some good end."- — One might be
tempted to apply the word the loorld exclusively to the
Gentile world, which would lead us to the explanation
whereby ver. 5 is put into a Jewish mouth. To this Jewish
interlocutor, excusing the sin of his nation by the good fruits
which God will one day reap from it, Paul would then
answer: But at this rate God could as little judge the
Gentiles {the world). For He brings good fruits from their
sins also. This meaning is very plausible in itself. But yet
it does not correspond with the apostle's thought. For the
word Tov Koafj^ov, the world, would then have such an emphasis
(as forming an antithesis to the Jews), that it would
necessarily require to be placed before the verb. The idea
is therefore more general: No final judgment is any longer
possible if the beneficial consequences of sin, human or

230 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Jewish, justify the sinner. This idea is exactly that which
is expounded in the two following verses.

Vv. 7, 8. " FoT^ if the truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a
sinner? And not (as we are accused of doing, and as some
falsely affirm that we teach), Let ics do evil, that good may
come ? whose damnation is just." — Many commentators
(Calvin, Grotius, Philippi) have fallen into a strange error in
regard to ver. 7. They imagine that this verse reproduces
once more the objection of ver. 5. The /or serves, they say, to
justify the question: "Is not God unrighteous?" In reality
the apostle is made to add: after the advantage which He has
derived from my lie for His glory, how does He still judge
me ? But for what reason should the for relate to ver. 5
rather than ver. 6, which immediately precedes ? This
would be to forget the answer given in ver. 6, and so to
confess its weakness ! In this case we should require rather,
to adopt the reading el Be, hut if of the SiTwM. and Vatic, and
to make ver. 7 an objection to the answer given in ver. 6.
But this reading is inadmissible, because this new objection
raised would remain without answer in the sequel. This
same reason tells also against the explanation which makes
ver. 7 a simple reaffirmation of the objection of ver. 5. How
could an objection, reproduced so forcibly, possibly be left
without any other answer than the relegating of those who
dare to raise it to the judgment of God (ver. 8)? For a
mind Jike Paul's this would be a strange mode of arguing !
Ver. 7 is simply, as the for indicates, the confirmation of
the answer given in ver. 6 : " How would God judge the world ?
In reality (for) every sinner might come before the judge and
say to Him, on his own behalf: And I too by my lie, I have
contributed to Thy glory. And he must be acquitted." — By
the phrase truth of God Paul returns to the beginning of
the discussion (vv. 3 and 4). What is in question is the
moral uprightness of God ; in like manner the term lie brings
us back to the every man a liar (ver. 4). This lie consists in
voluntary ignorance of goodness, to escape the obligation of
doing it. The verb eirepiaaevdev, has abounded, strictly:
flowed over, denotes the surplus of glory which God's moral
^ (( and B '/ead i; )• instead of u y»f.

CHAP. III. 7, 8. 231

perfection extracts from human wickedness in each case.
'Etc, yet, signifies : even after so profitable a result has
accrued from my sin. Kayco, I also : " I who, as well as all the
rest, have contributed to Thy glory." It is as if one saw the
whole multitude of sinners appearing before the judgment-seat
one after the other, and throwiug this identical answer in
God's face; the judgment is therefore brought to nothing.
Thus is confirmed the answer of ver. 6 to the objection of
ver. 5. — This so suitable meaning appears to us preferable to
a more special sense which might present itself to the mind,
especially if one were tempted to apply the term the world
(ver. 6) to the Gentile, in opposition to the Jewish world
(ver. 5). The sense would be : " For the judgment comes to
nought for me Gentile, as well as for thee Jew, since I can
plead the same excuse as thou, my Gentilehood contributing
to glorify God's truth as much as thy unbelief to exalt His
righteousness." For the application to the Gentiles of the
two expressions: God's truth, and lie, see i. 25. But to
make this meaning probable, Paul would require to have
brought out in chap. i. the idea that idolatry had contributed
to God's glory ; and as to the restricted meaning of top
Koafjbov, the world, see at p. 229.

The apostle pushes his refutation to the utmost (ver. 8) :
Why even not go further ? Why, after annihilating the
judgment, not say further, to be thoroughly consequent:
" And even let us furnish God, by sinning more freely, with
richer opportunities of doing good ! Will not every sin be a
material which He will transform into the pure gold of His
glory ? " The words koI firi, aind not, should probably be
followed by the verb : let us 6.0 evil ? ironfiamfiev ra KaKa, as
we have translated it. But in Greek the sentence is
interrupted by the insertion of a parenthesis, intended to
remind the reader that such is precisely the odious principle
which Paul and his brethren are accused by their calumni-
ators of practising and teaching. And when, after this
parenthesis, he returns in ver. 8 to his principal idea:
iroLrja(ofiQv, let us do, instead of connecting it with the con-
junction, and (that) not, he makes it depend directly on the
last verb of the parenthesis, teach: "As we are accused of
teaching, let v^ do evil" The or*, that, is the or* recitative so

23^2 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH,

common in Greek (transition from the indirect to the direct
form of discourse). The construction which we have just
indicated is a form of anacolouthon, of which numerous
examples are found in dassic authors. — The verb we are
accused has for its object the understood clause : of doing so,
of practising this principle. If we understood: "Accused oj
teaching" the following words would be a mere superfluous
repetition. The term p\aa(f>7]fiela6aL seems deliberately
chosen to suggest the idea that the principle calumniously
imputed to him is itself blasphemous in its nature. The
second part of the parenthesis adds the idea of professing
(\aXeiv) to that of practising. The words form a climax, for
it is graver to lay down a blasphemous maxim as a principle
than to put it into practice in a few isolated cases. Hofmann
has proposed another construction ; he understands ianv after
Kol fi7], and makes the following Ka6a)<; dependent on it:
"And it is not the case with me, as we are accused of prac-
tising and teaching, that it only remains to do evil that "...
But it is harsh to make the Kadco^ depend on eVrt; and
Meyer rightly observes that Paul would have required to say
Kal ov, and not koI ^rj ; comp. the interrogations, 1 Cor. vi. 7 ;
Luke xix. 23, etc. — The sort of malediction which closes the
verse is applied by most commentators to those who really
practise and teach the maxim which is falsely applied to Paul.
But the apostle would not have confined himself in that case
to the use of the simple relative pronoun wz^, whose; he would
necessarily have required to indicate, and even characterize,
the antecedent of the pronoun, which cannot refer to any sub-
stantive expressed or understood in the preceding proposition.
It must have for its antecedent the preceding rtre?, some, and
we must apply this severe denunciation to the calumniators
of the apostle's life and teaching. Those who raise such
accusations wrongly and maliciously against his person and
doctrine themselves deserve the condemnation which they
call down on the head of Paul. But it should be well
observed that the apostle does not express himself thus till
he has satisfied all the demands of logical discussion.

"vations on the passage, iii. 1-8. — Notwithstanding its
temporary application to the Jewish people, this passage,
which will find its complete explanation in chap, xi., has a

CHAP. III. 9-20. 233

real permanent value. It has always been sought to justify
the greatest crimes in history by representing the advantages
in which they have resulted to the cause of humanity. There
is not a Eobespierre who has not been transformed into a saint
in the name of utilitarianism. But to make such a canoniza-
tion valid, one would require to begin by proving that the
useful result sprang from the evil committed as its principle.
Such is the teaching of Pantheism. Living Theism, on the
contrary, teaches that this transformation of the bad deed into
a means of progress, is the miracle of God's wisdom and power
continually laying hold of human sin to derive from it a result
contrary to its nature. On the first view, all human responsi-
bility is at an end, and the judgment becomes a nullity. On
the second, man remains fully responsible to God for the bad
deed as an expression of the evil will of its author, and despite
the good which God is pleased to extract from it. Such is
scriptural optimism, which alone reconciles man's moral
responsibility with the doctrine of providential progress. Tlie
apostle has laid the foundations of this true theodide in the
remarkable piece which we have just been studying. — It is
curious to see how Holsten seeks to explain this passage, the
meaning of which has, as we think, been made so clear by a
polemical intention against the alleged Judeo-Christianity of the
Christians of Eome. We do not waste time in giving a refuta-
tion which seems to us to arise of itself from the preceding.

The apostle has drawn in two great pictures the reign of
God's wrath — (1) over the Gentile world (chap, i.); (2) over
the Jewish people (chap, ii.) ; and by way of appendix he has
added a passage to this second picture, intended to sw^eep
away the objections which, from the ordinary Jewish point of
view, seemed opposed to the statement that this elect people
could possibly become, notwithstanding their unbelief, the
object of divine animadversion. Now, to the judgment which
follows from the preceding context with respect to the whole
of maiildnd, he affixes the seal of Scripture sanction, without
which he regards no proof as finally valid.

SEVENTH PASSAGE (III. 9-20).

Scripture proclaims the fact of Universal Condemnation,

After a general declaration, repeating the already demon-
strated fact of the condemnation of Jews and Greeks (ver. 9),

234 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the apostle quotes a series of Scripture sayings v/hich con-
firm this truth (vv. 10-18); then he formally states the
conclusion (vv. 19 and 20).

Ver. 9. " Wliat then ? are ive sheltered ? ^ No, in no wise : *
for we Jmve before proved^ all men, both Jews and Greeks, that
they are under sin!' — If the words tl ovv, what theni, be taken
as an independent question, the meaning will be : " What,
then, is the state of things ? To what result are we thus
brought ? " But many commentators connect these two
words with the following sentence, so as to form a single
question. The meaning in that case is, according to the
different acceptations of the verb Trpoi'^ecrOaL : What have
vje to allege as an excuse ? or : In what, then, are we supemor ?
But neither of these meanings agrees with the answer
following. Indeed, instead of in no wise, it would require to
be none whatever, or in nothing. There are therefore two
questions, and not merely one. — What is the sense of the
verb irpoe^ofieBa, which by itself forms the second question ?
We should first testify to the correctness of the Received
reading. All the Mss. are at one on this point except A L,
which read the subjunctive instead of the indicative, obviously
to convert the word into an exhortation, and D Gr, which read
7rpoKaT6'^ofi€v while adding the object Treptcra-ov; these last, at
the same time, reject the words ov 7rdjna)<;. This is the text
which Chrysostom and Theodoret seem to have followed, as
well as the Itala and Peschito. The meaning would be:
What superiority do we possess ? It is simply an attempt to
escape from the difficulty of the Received reading. — The verb
wpoe^eiv has two principal meanings in the active : to hold
before (in order to protect), and to hold the first place. In
the passive, the first meaning changes into to be protected ; the
second meaning, as being intransitive, has no passive. In the
middle, the verb signifies, according to the first meaning : to
protect oneself, to shelter oneself to hold out a 'pretext; according
to the second : to place oneself at the head, to surpass. It is
logically impossible to apply here the idea of superiority,
either in the passive form: Are we preferred? ov m the

' Instead of -rpoixof^'-i^x, A L read -rpoixa/uiffa, ; D G : iTfoxuTi;(^of4.iv Tiftafft*.

* D G P omit ov <ra.VTM;.

• D G read nnatcrec/xt^u instead of Tj>07i-ia.reuiii6it.

CHAP. m. 9. .235

middle form : Do we surpass ? Undoubtedly these two
interpretations have both found their defenders ; Osterv., for
example : Are we preferable ? Oltram. : Have we some superi-
ority'? But the question of ascribing a superiority to the
Jews had been put at ver. 1 ; the apostle had resolved it
affirmatively from the theocratic standpoint. If, then, he now
resolves it negatively, as he does in the following answer, it
can only be from the moral point of view. But in this case
he could not fail to indicate this distinction. The only
appropriate meaning, therefore, is that of sheltering, which is
also the most frequent in classic Greek : " Have we a shelter
under which we can regard ourselves as delivered from
wrath ? " This meaning seems to us to be perfectly suitable.
The apostle has demonstrated that the Jewish people, as well
as the Gentile world, are under God's wrath. He has put to
himself the objection : But what in this case becomes of the
Jew's advantage ? And he has proved that this advantage,
perfectly real though it be, cannot hinder the rejection and
judgment of this people. " What then ? " he now asks as a
consequence from what precedes, " can we flatter ourselves
that we have a refuge ? " " In no wise," such is his answer.
All is closely bound together in the reasoning thus under-
stood.— The phrase ov irdmox; strictly signifies : not altogether ;
comp. 1 Cor. v. 10. When Paul means : not at all, he
uses, in conformity with Greek custom, the form irdvToy^ ov ;
comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 12. But the first meaning is evidently too
weak after the preceding argument, and in consequence of
that which follows. Meyer even finds himself obliged here
to abandon his philological rigorism, and to take the second
meaning. And, in reality, this meaning is not incorrect. It
is enough, as Morison says, to make a pause in reading after ov,
not, adding iravroo^, absolutely, as a descriptive : no, absolutely;
or better : no, certainly. This meaning is that of the entirely
similar phrase ov irdvv in Xenophon, Demosthenes, Lucian, and
even that of ov 7rdvTeo<s in two passages quoted by Morison,
the one taken from classic Greek, the other from patristic.^

' Theognis, 305: "The wicked are certainly not born wicked (ou -rcivTus)."
The translation : not altogether, is inadmissible. — Ep. to Diogn. c. 9 : ** Certainly
vot taking pleasure in our sins {tu itutrMf), but bearing them." The meaning
not altogether would be absurd.

236 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITIL

The apostle demonstrates this negation, which refers speci-
ally to the Jews, by summing up in the following proposition
the result of the long, preceding indictment against: the two
divisions of mankind. The term ahidadai, to accuse, incri-
minate, belongs to the language of the bar. The irpo, heforcy
previously, which enters into the composition of the verb,
reminds the reader of the two great pictures which Paul had
just drawn. — The phrase : to he under sin, does not merely
signify : to be under the responsibility (the guilt) of sins
committed, but also to be under the power of sin itself, which
like a perpetual fountjain constantly reproduces and increases
this guilt. These two meanings, sin as a trespass, and sin as
a power, are both demanded by the context, the first by the
preceding, and the second by the succeeding context. In
point of fact, God's wrath is not based solely on trespasses
committed, which have something external and acgidental in
their character; it is founded, above all, on the permanent
state of human nature as it is about to be described by Scrip-
ture. So long as the Scriptures had not spoken, Paul might
be regarded as a simple accuser. But as soon as the voice
of this judge shall be heard, the case will be determined, and
the sentence pronounced. Vv. 1 0—1 8 enumerate, if one may
so speak, the grounds of judgment ; vv. 19 and 20 give the
sentence.

Paul first reminds his readers, in scriptural terms, of the
most general characteristics of human corruption, v v. 10— 12.
Then he presents two particular classes of the ma^nifestations
of this corruption, vv. 13—17. Finally, he closes this descrip-
tion by a decisive feature which goes back to the very fountain
of evil, ver. 18.

Vv. 10-12. "^s it is written, There is none righteous, no,
not one: there is none^ that understandeth, there is none tliat
seekcth^ after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable ; there is none that doeth^ good, no,
not one.'' — These six sentences are taken from Ps. xiv. 1—3.
At the first glance, this psalm seems to be depicting the
wickedness of the Gentiles only ; comp. ver. 4 ; *' They eat up

* A B G omit the o before aruviuv.

* B G omit 0 before ix^rjTuv (B : Z*iTuy).

* K D E read the article e before ■zoiut.

CHAP. III. 13, 14. 237

my people, as if they were eating bread/' But on looking at
it more closely, it is clear that the term my people denotes the
true people of Jehovah, " the afflicted " (ver. 6), in opposition
to the proud and violent as well within as without the theo-
cracy. This delineation therefore applies to the moral cha-
racter of man, so long as he remains beyond the influence of
divine action. — Ver. 10 contains the most general statement.
Instead of the word righteous, there is in the Hebrew : the
man that doeth good, which comes to the same thing. — The
two terms which follow in ver. 1 1 have a more particular
sense. The first is related to the understanding : the know-
ledge of the Creator in His worlcs ; the second to the will :
the aspiration after union with this perfect being. The Sinait.,
like most of the Mjj., reads the article o before the two par-
ticiples. This article is in keeping with the meaning of the
psalm. God is represented as seeking that one man and not
finding him. We may accentuate avviMv as an unusual
participle of avvieo) or crvvicov, from the verb. (tvvi(o, which
sometimes takes the place of the verb avvLTjfii. — In the case
where positive good is not produced (seeking after God), the
heart immediately falls under the dominion of evil ; this state
is described in general terms, ver. 12.

"'EicKklveiv, to deviate, to go in a bad way, because one has
voluntarily fled from the good (ver. 11). ^ A')(p€Lov(r6ai, to
become useless, unfit for good, corresponds to the Hebrew alach,
to hecome sour, to be spoiled. — The sixth proposition reproduces,
by way of resume, the idea of the first. Mankind resembles a
caravan which has strayed, and is moving in the direction
opposite to the right one, and whose members can do nothing
to help one another in their common misery (do good).

Here begins a second and more particular description, that
of human wickedness manifesting itself in the form of speech.

Vv. 13, 14. "Their throat is an open sepulchre ; with their
tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is under their
lips : whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness." — These
four propositions refer to the different organs of speech, and
show them all exercising their power to hurt, under the
dominion of sin. The throat (larynx) is compared to a
sepulchre; this refers to the language of the gross and
brutal man, of whom it is said in common parlance : it seems

238 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

as if he would like to eat you. The characteristic which
follows contrasts with the former ; it is the sugared iongiie^
which charms you like a melodious instrument. The imper-
fect eBoXiovG-av (Alex, form) denotes the action as continually
repeated. These two features are borrowed from Ps. v. 9,
where they describe the behaviour of David's enemies. The
third proposition is taken from Ps. cxL 3, which treats of the
same subject; what is meant is that calumny and falsehood
which malignant lips give forth, as the serpent infuses its
poison. The fourth (ver. 14) describes the wickedness which
is cast in your face by a mouth full of hatred or bitterness ;
it is borrowed from Ps. x. 7, where the contrast is between
the weak godly man and the powerful wicked man withii
the theocracy itself.

This picture of human depravity manifesting itself in word
is completed by the description of the same wickedness shown
in deeds.

Vv. 15—18. " Their feet are swift to shed blood : oppression
and misery are in tJieir ways : the way of peace they have not
knoion : there is no fear of God before their eyes." — Of these
four propositions the first three are borrowed from Isa. lix.
7, 8, in which chapter the prophet confesses the corruption
of Israel. The feet, as the emblem of walking, symbolize the
whole conduct Man acts without regard to his neighbour,
without fear of compromising his welfare and even his life ; a
saying taken from Prov. i. 16. He oppresses (avvTpcfifia) his
brother, and fills his life with misery {raXaiTrtDpla), so that
the way marked out by such a course is watered with the
tears of others. — No peace can exist either in the heart of
such men, or in their neighbourhood (ver. 17). And this
overflow of depravity and suffering arises from a void: the
absence of that feeling which should have filled the heart,
the fear of God (ver. 18). This term is the normal expres-
sion for piety in the Old Testament ; it is that disposition in
man which has always God present in the heart, His will
and judgment. The words: before their eyes, show that it
belongs to man freely to evoke or suppress this inward view
of God, on which his moral conduct depends. This final
characteristic is borrowed from Ps. xxxvi. 1, which marks the
contrast between the faithful and the wicked even in Israel

CHAP. m. 19, 20. 239

The apostle in drawing this picture, which is only a group-
ing together of strokes of the pencil, made hy the hands of
psalmists and prophets, does not certainly mean that each of
those characteristics is found equally developed in every man.
Some, even the most of them, may remain latent in many
men; but they all exist in germ in the selfishness and
natural pride of the egOy and the least circumstance may cause
them to pass into the active state, when the fear of God does
not govern the heart. Such is the cav^se of the divine con-
demnation which is suspended over the human race.

This is the conclusion which the apostle reaches ; but he
limits the express statement of it, in vv. 19, 20, to the Jews;
for they only could attempt to protest against it, and put them-
selves outside this delineation of human corruption. They
could object in particular, that many of the sayings quoted
referred not to them, but to the Gentiles. Paul foresees this
objection, and takes care to set it aside, so that nothing may
impair the sweep of the sentence which God pronounces on
the state of mankind.

Vv. 19, 20. "Now we know that what things soever the law
%aith} it speaks^ for them who are under the lata: that every
niouth may he stopped, aiid all the world may become guilty
before God. For that by the deeds of the laiv there shall no flesh
he justified m His sight: for hy the law is the knowledge of sin."
— By his we know, Paul appeals to the common sense of his
readers. It is obvious, indeed, that the Old Testament, while
depicting to the Jews the wickedness of the Gentiles, did not
at all mean to embitter them against the latter, but to put
them on their guard against the same sins, and preserve them
from the same judgments ; a proof that God saw in their
hearts the same germs of corruption, and foresaw their inevit-
able development if the Jews did not remain faithful to Him.
Thus, while none of the sayings quoted might refer to them, they
were nevertheless all uttered for them. — The law here denotes
the whole Old Testament, as being throughout the rule for
Israelitish life; comp. John x. 34; 1 Cor. xiv. 21, etc. — The
difference of meaning between the words l^^yevv, to say, and
\a\elv, to speak, comes out clearly in this passage, — the first
refening to the contents of the saying, the second to the fact
* fc? Or. : XaXw for xiyu. * D F G L: hiyu for XaXii.

240 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

of its utterance. — There is no reason for weakening the sense
of the conjunction ha, in order that, and making it signify so
that. The ohjcct of all those declarations given forth by Scrip-
ture regarding the wickedness of the natural man, was really
to close his mouth against all vainglory, as that to which a man
filled with self - satisfaction gives himself up. Every mouth,
even the Jews'. Kal: and that thus. All the world: all man-
kind, Jew and Gentile ; v7r6BiKo<;, placed under the stroke oj
justice, like one whom the judge has declared guilty, and who
owes satisfaction to the law he has violated. The word is
frequently used in this sense in the classics ; it is a judicial
term, corresponding to the word Paul had used to denote the
accusation (airidcrOaL, ver. 9). The last word : to God, is full
of solemnity ; it is into the hands of His justice that the whole
guilty world falls.

The all the is so true that the only possible exception, that
of the Jewish people, is excluded (ver. 20). This people,
indeed, could have alleged a host of ritualistic and moral
works performed daily in obedience to the divine law. Did
not such works establish in their case special merit and right
to God's favour ? The apostle sets aside such a claim. A ion:
for that. No flesh: no human creature (see on i. 3). — Here
for the first time we meet with the expression epya vo/jlov,
works of the law, one of the important terms in the apostle's
vocabulary. It is found, however, only in the Epistles to
the Romans (iii. 28, ix. 32) and to the Galatians (ii. 16,
iii. 2, 5, 10). But, nevertheless, it expresses one of the ideas
which lie at the root of his experience and of his view of
Christian truth. It sums up the first part of his life. It may
be understood in two ways. A woi^k of law may mean : a
work exactly conformed to the law, corresponding to all the
law prescribes (Hodge, Morison, etc.) ; or it may mean : such
a work as man can accomplish under the dispensation of the
law, and with such means only as are available under this
dispensation. In the first sense it is certainly unnecessary to
explain the impossibility of man's finding his righteousness in
those works by an imperfection inherent in the moral ideal
traced by the law. For Paul himself says, vii. 14, that " the
law is spiritual;" vii. 12, that "the law is holy, and the
commandment is holy, just, and good;'' viii. 4, that "the work

CHAP. III. 19, 20. 241

of the Holy Spirit in the believer consists in fulfilling what
the law has determined to be righteous." Much more, he goes
the length of affirming positively, with Moses himself (Lev.
xviii. 5), that if any one exactly fulfilled the law he would live
by his obedience (Eom. x. 5 ; Gal. iii. 1 2). Taking this
meaning, then, why cannot the works of the law justify ? It
can only be man's powerlessness to do them. St. Paul would
then say : " No man will be justified by the works of the law,
because works really conformed to the spirit of the law are
beyond his power to realize." Thus the kind of works referred
to in the declaration : " not being justified by the works of the
law," would be ideal and not real. This meaning is far from
natural. From Paul's way of speaking of the works of the
law, we cannot help thinking that he has a fact in view, —
that he is reckoning with a real and not a fictitious value.
We must therefore come to the second meaning : works such
as man can do when he has no other help than the law, — that
is to say, in fact, in his own strength. The law is perfect in
itself. But it does not pro\'ide fallen man with the means of
meeting its demands. Paul explains himself clearly enough
on this head, Gal. iii. 21: "If there had been a law given
which could have given life, verily righteousness should have
been by the law." In other words, the law does not com-
municate the Spirit of God, and through Him the life of love,
which is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. xiii. 10). Works
wrought in this state, notwitlistanding their external conformity
to the letter of the law, are not therefore its real fulfilment.
Though agreeable to the legal statute, they are destitute of
the moral disposition which would give them value in the
eyes of God. Paul himself had groaned till tlie time of his
conversion over the grievous contrast in his works which he
constantly discerned between the appearance and the reality ;
comp. the opposition between the state which he calls, vii. 6,
oldness of the letter and newness of spirit. He gives his esti-
mate of the works of the law when, after saying of himself
before his conversion, Phil. iii. 6 : "As to the righteousness
which is under the law, blameless," he adds, ver. 7 : " But
what things were gain to me (all this from the human point
of view blameless righteousness), these I counted loss for
Christ's sake." — There remains one question to be examined.

GODET. Q ROM. I.

242 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Is it true, as Tlieodoret/ Pelagius, and many modern critics
have thought, that Paul is speaking here only of ceremonial
works imposed by the law, and not of works implying moral
obedience ? The meaning of the verse would then be this :
" The whole world is condemned ; for the Jews themselves
cannot be justified by the observance of the ceremonies which
their law prescribes." But such a distinction between two
kinds of works is opposed to the context ; for the apostle does
not contrast work with work — he contrasts work with faith.
Then how could he add immediately, that by the law is the
knowledge of sin ? From vii. 7, 8, it appears that this saying
applies above all to the moral law. For it was the tenth
commandment which led the apostle to discern covetousness
in his heart, and it was this discovery of covetousness which
convinced him of sin. Hence it appears that the last words
of our verse refer to the moral, and not the ceremonial law,
which decides the meaning of the term : the works of the law.
Besides, the expression all flesh, wliich evidently embraces the
Gentiles, could not be applied to them if the law were here
taken as the ceremonial law, for in this sense they have never
had it. In general, the distinction between the ritual and the
moral elements of the law is foreign to the Jewish conscience,
which takes the law as a divine unity. — It follows from thisr
saying of the apostle, that man ought never to attempt to put
any work whatever between God and himself as establishing
a right to salvation, whether a work wrought before his con-
version proceeding from his natural ability, for it will lack the
spirit of love which alone would render it good in God's sight;
or even a work posterior to regeneration and truly good (epyov
a'^adov, Eph. ii. 10), for as such it is the fruit of the Spirit,
and cannot be transformed into a merit of man. — The declara-
tive meaning of the verb hiKaiovv, to justify, appears clearly
here from the two subordinate clauses : hy the works of the law,
and lefore Him (see on i. 17).

By a short proposition (20&) the apostle justifies the principle
affirmed 20a. Far from having been given to sinful man to
furnish him with a means of justification, the law was rather
given to help him in discerning the sin which reigns over

* Not Origen and Chrj-sostom, as Calviu erroneously says. (See the rectifica-
tiuu in Morison.1

CHAP. III. 19, 20. 243

him ; hri^vwcri^, discernment, proof. — This thought is only
indicated here ; it will be developed afterwards. Indeed,
Paul throughout the whole of this piece is treating of sin as
griilt, forming the ground of condemnation. Not till chap, vii
will he consider sin as a power, in its relation to the law, and
in this new connection ; then will be the time for examining
the idea with which he closes this whole passage.

Judaism was living under a great illusion, which holds it to
this very hour, to wit, that it is called to save the Gentile
world by communicating to it the legal dispensation which
it received through Moses. " Propagate the law," says the
apostle, " and you will have given to the world not the means
of purifying itself, but the means of seeing better its real
corruption." These for us are commonplaces, but they are
become so through our Epistle itself. At the time when it
was written, these commonplaces were rising on the horizon
like divine beams which were to make a new day dawn on
the world.

On the order of ideas in this first section, according to Hofmann
and Volkmar. — Hofmann finds the principal division of this
section betv/een vv. 4 and 5 of chap. iii. Up to ver. 4, the
apostle is proving that God's wrath rests on mankind, whether
Gentile (i. 18-ii. 8) or Jewish (ii. 9-iii. 4) ; but from that point
all the apostle says applies specially to Christians, thus : " As we
are not ignorant, we Christians (iii. 5), that man's sin, even
when God is glorified by it, can be justly judged (vv. 5-7), and
as we do not teach, as we are accused of doing, that the good
wliich God extracts from evil excuses it (ver. 8), we bow, with
all other men, before the Scripture declarations which attest
the common sin, and we apply to ourselves the sentence of
condemnation which the law pronounces on the whole world.
Only (iii. 21 et seq.) we do not rest there; for we have the
happiness of knowing that there is a righteousness of faith
through which we escape from wrath." — This construction is
refuted, we think, by three principal facts — 1. The man who
judges, ii. 1, is necessarily the Jew (see the exegesis). 2. Tlie
objection, iii. 5, is closely connected with the quotation from
Ps. Ii., and cannot be the beginning of a wholly new develop-
ment. 3. The question : " What then ? have we a shelter ? "
(ver. 9), is too plainly a reference to that of ver. 1 (" what then
is the advantage of the Jew ? ") to be applied otherwise than
specially to the Jew. This is confirmed by the end of ver. 9,
in which the apostle gives the reason for the first proposition

244 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

in this general sentence ; " For we have proved hoth Jevjs and
Greehsr It is clear, therefore, that as chap. i. from ver. 18
describes the wrath of God displayed on the Gentiles, chap. ii.
describes and demonstrates the wrath of God as accumulating
over the Jewish world, and that the passage iii. 1-8 is simply
intended to set aside tlie objection which the Jew might draw
from his exceptional superiority. Vv. 9-20 are the scriptural
resume emd demonstration of this double condemnation of Jews
and Gentiles. — According to Volkmar, chap. i. from ver. 18
describes the wrath of God against all sin, and chap. ii. that
same wrath against all sinners, even against the Jew, notwith-
standing his excuses (ii. 1-1 G) and his advantages, which he
is unable to turn to moral account (vv. 17-29), and finally,
notwithstanding the greatest of his privileges, the possession of
the Messianic promises (iii. 1-8). Here, iii. 9, Volkmar places
the beginning of the new section, that of the rigliteousness of
faith. "Since the whole world is perishing, vv. 9-20, God
saves the world by the righteousness of faith, which is con-
firmed by the example both of Abraham and Adam, the type of
Christ." This construction differs from ours only in two points,
which are not to its advantage, as it appears to me — (1) The
antithesis between all sins (chap, i.) and all sinners (chap, ii.),
which is too artificial to be apostolical ; (2) The line of demarca-
tion between the preceding and the new section fixed at iii. 9
(instead of iii. 21), a division which awkwardly separates the
section on lurath in its entirety (i. 18-iii. 8) from its scriptural
summary (vv. 9-20).

SECOND SECTION.

III. 2t-V. 11. — JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ACQUIRED FOR THE
WHOLE WORLD.

In this section, wliich forms the counterpart of the pre-
ceding, three principal ideas are developed.

1. The historical fact by which justification by faith is
acquired for the world, iii. 21-26.

2. The harmony of this mode of justification with the
revelation of the Old Testament, iii. 27-iv. 25.

3. The certainty of justification, not for the present only,
but for all t\iQ future, embracing the last judgment, v. 1-11.

Thus the sentence of condemnation is effaced by that of
absolution.

CHAP. III. 21, 22. 245

EIGHTH PASSAGE (HI. 21-26).

The Fact ly which Justification hy Faith is acquired for us.

We have already proved that ver. 2 1 is directly connected in
sense with i. 17 (see pp. 163, 164). In the interval from i. 18
to iii. 20, the apostle has shown that the wrath of God rests on
mankind, whence it follows that if the world is not to perish,
a divine manifestation of an opposite kind, and able to over-
come the first, is indispensable. It is this new revelation
which forms the subject of the following passage. Vv. 21
and 22 contain the theme of the first piece, and at the
same time of the whole section. Ver. 23 once more sums up
the thought of the preceding section; and w. 24—26 are the
development of the subject, the exposition of the new way of
justification.

Vv. 21, 22a. "But noio the righteousness of God is mani-
fested without the law, teing uritnesscd hy the law and tJie
prophets ; even the righteousness of God hy faith in Jesus Christ ^
for and upon all them? that helieve.'' — The he, hut, is strongly
adversative ; it contrasts the revelation of righteousness with
that of wrath. The former is presented as a new fact in the
history of mankind ; so that one might be led to give the
word now a temporal sense ; comp. the at this time, ver. 2 6,
and Acts xvii. 30. This, however, is only apparent. The
contrast with the preceding is moral rather than temporal ; it
is the contrast between the condemnation pronounced by the
law (ver. 20) and the new righteousness acquired without the
law (ver. 21). It is therefore better to give the word now
the logical meaning which it has so frequently in the New
Testament (vii. 17 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 12, xiv. 6, etc.) and in the
classics : "The situation beino; such." The words: without the
law, stand foremost, as having the emphasis. They evidently
depend on the verb is manifested, and not on the word
righicoitsness (a righteousness witlwut law, Aug.). The absence
of the article before the word law does not prove that the

^ Marcion omitted tlie word Irxrov^ which is also rejected by B.
' The words xut i-jri tccvtccs are omitted by i< A B C P, Copt., but are read in
D E F G K L, Syr. Vulg. and the Fathers.

246 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

apostle does not mean the term to denote the Moscdc law ;
only the law is excluded from co-operating in the new right-
eousness not because it is Mosaic, but because it is law. Under
the old dispensation, righteousness came to man through the
thousand channels of legalism ; in the new, righteousness is
given him without the least co-operation of what can be
called a law. — We know what Paul calls the righteousness of
God : it is the state of reconciliation with God in which man
is placed by the sentence which declares him just (see on
i. 17). — The verb (fyavepovv, to put in the light, differs from
the verb aTrofcaXvTrreiv, to reveal, used i. 17, in the figure, not
in the sense. The second applies to an object which was
hidden by a veil, and which is made known by withdrawing
the veil ; the former, to an object placed in the shade, and on
which rays of light are let fall. The only real difference from
i. 1 7 is therefore this : there, the verb was in the present, for
it denoted the permanent revelation of the gospel by means
of evangelical preaching ; while here, the verb is in the perfect,
because it refers, as Morison says, " to the fact itself, which
that preaching proclaims." That fact now finished is the
subject expounded in vv. 25 and 26 ; it is through it that
the righteousness of God is set in the light for all times.

But if legal observances are excluded from all co-operation
in this righteousness, it does not follow that the latter is in
contradiction to the Old Testament revelation in its double
form of law and prophecy. These two manifestations of the
divine will, commandment, and promise, understood in their
true sense, contain, on the contrary, the confirmation of the
righteousness of faith, as the apostle will prove in the sequel
of this section, ver. 27— i v. 25. The law by unveiling sin opens
up the void in the heart, which is filled by the righteousness
of faith ; prophecy completes the work of preparation by
promising this righteousness. Thus there is no objection to
be drawn from the old revelation against the new. As the
new fulfils the old, the latter confirms the former.

Ver. 22. The new righteousness, then, being given without
any legal work, what is the means by which it is conferred ?
Ver. 2 2 answers : faith in Jesus Christ. Such is the true
means opposed to the false. The Be, now, which the transla-
tion cannot render, is explanatory, as ix. 30 ; Gal. ii. 2 ; PhiL

CHAP. III. 21, 22. 247

ii. 8, etc. It takes the place of a scilicet, to loit Osterv. and
Oltram. have well rendered it by : say I : " The righteousness,
/ say, of God." Here, again, the absence of the article serves
to indicate the category : a righteousness of divine origin, in
opposition to the legal dispensation, in which righteousness
proceeds from human works. — This righteousness is granted
to faith, not assuredly because of any merit inherent in it, —
for this would be to fall back on loorl^, the very thing which
the new dispensation wishes to exclude, — but because of the
object of faith. Therefore it is that this object is expressly
mentioned : Jesus Christ. The omission of the word Jesus by
Marcion is perhaps to be explained by the fact that this
heretic denied the humanity of Jesus, and attached import-
ance only to His Christship. The omission of this word in
the one Mj. B, cannot bring it into suspicion. It has been
attempted to make this complement: Jesus Christ, a gen,
suhjecti : the faith which Jesus Christ Himself had, whether
His faith in God (Benecke : His fidelity to God) or His fidelity
to us (Lange). The parallel, i. 17, suffices to refute such
interpretations. The only possible sense is this : faith in
Jesv^ Christ ; comp. Mark xi. 22 ; Gal. ii. 16 ; Jas. ii. 1, etc.
- — This clause : hy faith in Jesus Christ, is the reproduction and
development of the first clause : eK irlcneo)^, hy faith, i. 1 7.
The following: for and upon all them that believe, is the
development of the second clause in the same verse: eh
TTiariv, for faith. Faith, indeed, as we have seen, plays a
double part in justification. It is the disposition which God
accepts, and which He imputes as righteousness ; and it is at
the same time the instrument whereby every one may appro-
priate for his own personal advantage this righteousness of
faith. The first office is expressed here by the clause : hy faith ;
the second by the clause : for and upon all them that believe. —
The words koI iirl Travra^, and upon all them, are wanting in
the four Alex., but they are found in the Mjj. of the other
two families (except P), and in the ancient Vss. Meyer and
Morison justly remark that it would be impossible to account
for their interpolation, as there was nothing in the clause : for
all them, to demand this explanatory addition. It is easy to
understand, on the contaary, how these words were omitted,
either through a confusion of the two iravTa^ by the copyists.

248 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

— the SinaU., m particular, abounds in sucli omissions,^ — or
because this clause seemed to be a pleonasm after the preced-
ing. It is quite in keeping with Paul's manner thus to
accumulate subordinate clauses to express by a change of
prepositions the different aspects of the moral fact which
he means to describe. These two aspects in this case are
those of general destination (eh, for) and personal application
(iiri, upon) : " As to this righteousness, God sends it for thee
that thou mayest believe in it ; and it will rest on thee from
the moment thou believest." Comp. Phil. iii. 9. Theodore t,
Bengel, etc., have thought that the clause : for all them, applied
to the Jews, and the clause : upon all them, to the Gentiles.
But the very object the apostle has here in view is to efface
every other distinction save that of believing. This same reason
prevents us also from allowing the explanation of Morison,
who, after Wetstein, Flatt, Stuart, puts a comma after eh
7rdvTa<;, for all, that is to say, for all men, absolutely speak-
ing, inasmuch as this righteousness is really universal in
destination, and who applies the participle : them that believe,
only to the second clause : upon all, inasmuch as real partis
cijjation in this righteousness is granted to believers only.
But in this case the second iravra^, all, should of course have
been omitted. Then we shall see in ver. 25 that the condi-
tion of faith is included from the beginning in the very decree
of redemption. Finally, these two clauses : for all them, and
upon all the7n that believe, are plainly the unfolding of the
contents of the words eh irlariv, for faith, i. 1 7 ; whence it
follows that the words who believe belong equally to the twc
pronouns all. — To pronounce one righteous, God does not then
any more ask : Hast thou kept the law ? but : Believest thou,
thou, whoever thou art ? The first clause : for all, contrasts
this believer, Jew or Gentile, with the Jews, who alone could
attain to the righteousness of the law. The second clause :
lipon all, contrasts this righteousness as a gift of God fully
made, with that of the law of which man himself must be the
maker.

These two verses are, as we shall see, the theme which

' How Tischendorf, in his 8th edition, could yield to the authority of this MS.
to the extent of rejecting these words, which he had preserved in the text of the
7tli, is incomprehensible.

CHAP. III. 22, 23. 249

will be developed in the whole following section. But, first,
ver. 23 sums up the preceding section by re-stating the
ground on which every human being needs the righteousness
of faith.

Vv. 22h, 23. "For there is no difference : for all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God" — By denying all
difference, the apostle means here that there are not two ways
by which men can be justified, the one that of works, the
other of faith. The first is closed against all, even the Jews,
by the fact of universal condemnation, which has just been
demonstrated. The second, therefore, alone remains open.
The old Genevan version, Ostervald, and ]\iartin put all ver. 2 3
into ver. 22, and thus reckon only thirty verses instead of
thirty-one in the chapter. The object of tliis change was to
make ver. 23 a simple parenthesis, that the participle heing
justified might be directly connected with ver. 22. But this
grammatical connection is certainly incorrect, and we should
preserve the reckoning of the verses as it stands in the Greek
text.

Ver. 23. This absence of difference in the mode of justifica-
tion rests on the equality of all in respect of the fact of sin.
In the aorist ^fiaprov, have committed sin, no account is taken
of the question whether they have done so once or a hundred
times. Once suffices to deprive us of the title of righteous,
and thereby of the gloiy of God. — Kal, and in consequence. —
The verb {jarepecaOaL, to lack, expresses in general the idea of
a deficit, which consists either in remaining below the normal
level, or in being behind others. Paul therefore means that
they all want more or less a normal state, which he calls the
glory of God. By this term some have understood the favour-
able opinion which God lias of the just man. His approbation
or favour (Grot. Turret. Fritzsche). This meaning is far
from natural ; John xii. 43 does not suffice to justify it.
Otliers understand by this expression : glory in God's sight, that
wliich we should possess if we were righteous (Mel. Calv,
Philippi). This meaning is not much more natural than that
which appears sometimes in Luther : the act of glorying in
God ; or than that of fficumenius and Chalmers : the destina-
tion of every man to glorify God. There are really only two
senses possible. The first is that oi the many commentators

250 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

who understand the glory of God as the future and eternal
glory (Beza, Morison, Eeuss, etc.). But in this case we must
give to the verb vaTepelaOat, a very forced meaning : to lack
the necessary qualifications for obtaining this glory. The second
meaning, and the only one which we think admissible, is this :
the divine splendour which shines forth from God Himself,
and which He communicates to all that live in union with
Him (see Hofmann, Meyer). This meaning includes that of
Eiickert and Olshausen, who understand it too specially, no
doubt, to mean the original image of God in man. The
complement &eov, of God, is at once a gen. possess, and
a gen. auctor. God can communicate this glory, because
He possesses it Himself, and it belongs to His nature. He
had communicated a ray of it to man when He created him
pure and happy ; it was intended to shine more and more
brightly in him as he rose from innocence to holiness. By
sinning, man lost both what he had received of it and what
he was yet to obtain. A dispossessed king, the crown has
fallen from his head. — The consequence of this state of things
is indicated, in close connection with the context, in ver. 24.

Ver. 24. "Being justified freely hy His grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus.'" — The participle BcKaLov-
fievoi, being justified, takes us by surprise. Why give this
idea, which is the principal one in the context, a subordinate
place, by using a participle to express it ? To explain this
unexpected form, it must be remembered that the idea of
justification had already been solemnly introduced, vv. 21, 22.
Ver. 2 3 had afterwards explained it by the fact of the fall ;
and now it can reappear as a simple corollary from this great
fact. We might paraphrase : " being consequently justified, as
we have just declared, freely "... The present participle
(Bi,Kaiov/ii6voL) refers to every moment in the history of man-
kind when a sinner comes to believe. There is no need
therefore to add, as Ostervald and others do, a new con-
junction: "and that they are justified." Neither is it
necessary to take this participle, with Beza and Morison,
as the demonstration of the fact of sin, ver. 23. It is im-
possible that the essential idea of the whole passage should
be given in proof of a secondary idea. The most erroneous
explanation seems to us to be that of Oltramare, ^^'ho here

CHAP. III. 24. 251

begins a wholly new period, the principal verb of which must
be sought in ver. 27: "Since we are justified freely ... is
there here, then, any cause for boasting ? " The most impor-
tant passage in the whole Epistle, vv. 24-26, would thus be
degraded to the rank of a simple incident. And, moreover,
*Jie asyndeton between w. 23, 24 would be without the
slightest justification.

This notion : leing justified, is qualified in three directions :
those of the mode, the origin, and the means. The mode is
expressed by the adverb Bcopedv, freely. It is not a matter
of wages, it is a free gift. — The origin of this gift is : His
grace, God's free goodwill inclining Him to sinful man to
besto^v on him a favour. There is no blind necessity here ;
we are face to face with a generous inspiration of divine love.
The means is the deliverance wrought in Jesus Christ. The
Greek term aTroXvTptoaL^ denotes etymologically, a deliverance
obtained by w^ay of purchase (Xvrpov, random). No doubt the
New Testament writers often use it in the general sense of
deliverance, apart from all reference to a price paid ; so viii.
23 ; Luke xxi. 28 ; 1 Cor. i. 30. But in these passages, as
Morison observes, the matter in question is only one of the
particular consequences of the fundamental deliverance obtained
by Christ. The idea of the latter is usually connected with
that of the ransom paid to obtain it; comp. Matt. xx. 28,
where it is said that Jesus gives His life a ransom (Xvrpov),
in the room and stead (dvrl) of many ; 1 Tim. ii. 6, where
the term signifying ransom forms one word with the preposi-
tion dvTL, in the place of (avTiXvTpov) ; 1 Pet. i. 18: "Ye
were ransomed as by the precious blood of the Lamb, without
spot." This notion of purchase, in speaking of the work of
Christ, appears also in 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Gal. iii. 13.
It is obvious that this figure was most familiar to the apostle's
mind ; it is impossible to get rid of it in the present passage.
— The title Christ is placed before the name Jesus, the main
subject here being His mediatorial office (see on i. 1). — After
thus giving the general idea of the work, the apostle expounds
it more in detail by defining exactly the ideas he has just
stated. That of divine grace reappears in the words : whom
He had set forth beforehand, ver. 25 ; that of deliverance, in
the words : to he a propitiation through faith ; that of Christ

2 [12 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Jesus, in the Wtjrds : in His blood; and, finally, the principal
term : being justified, in the last words of ver. 2 6 : the justifier
of him who believeth in Jesus. This conclusion thus brings us
back to the starting-point of the passage.

Vv. 25, 26. " Whom He had established beforehand as the
means of projntiation through faith^ by His blood, for the
demonstration of His righteousness on account of the tolerance
shown toward sins that were past, duri7ig the forbearance of God,
for the demonstration ^ of His righteousness at the present time ;
that He might be just, and the justifier of him loho is of the.
faith in Jesus." ^ — It is not without reason that these two
verses have been called " the marrow of theology." Calvin
declares "that there is not probably in the whole Bible a
passage which sets forth more profoundly the righteousnes?
of God in Christ." And yet it is so short that the statement
seems scarcely to have begun when all is said, within so few
lines are the most decisive thoughts concentrated ! It is
really, as Vitringa has said, " the brief summary of divine
wisdom." *

It is God Himself who, according to this passage, is to be
regarded as the ctuthor of the whole work of redemption. The
salvation of the world is not therefore wrested from Him, as
is sometimes represented by the mediation of Christ. The

1 fc? C D E F G omit rm "before -t/o-te&^s.

2 « A B C D P read t>jv before EvSn^iv.

3 D E L read Imow instead of Urov. — Uirov is omitted in F G It"'"''.

^ We may be allowed here to borrow from Morison the account of an experience
of the illustrious poet Cowper, calculated to give an impression of the wealth
of this passage. It was a time when Cowper was brought to the very verge of
despair. He had walked up and down in his room a long while profoundly
agitated. At last he seated himself near his window, and seeing a Bible there
he opened it, to find if possible some consolation and strength. *' The passage
which met my eye," says he, "was the twenty-fifth verse of the third chapter of
Romans. On reading it I immediately received power to believe. The rays of
the Sun of Righteousness fell on me in all their fulness ; I saw the complete
sulficiency of the expiation which Christ had wrought for my pardon and entire
justification. In an instant I believed and received the peace of the gospel."
"If," adds he, "the arm of the Almighty had not supported me, I believe I
should have been overwhelmed with gi-atitude and joy ; my eyes filled with
tears ; transports choked my utterance. I could only look to heaven in silent
fear, overflowing with love and wonder." But it is better to describe the work
of tlie Holy Spirit in his own words : " it was the joy which is unspeakable and
full of glory'' (1 P«t. 1. %).—Life of Cmoper, by Taylor.

CHAP. 111. 25, 26. 253

same tlionglit is expressed elsewhere ; for example, 2 Cor. v.
IS: "All is oj God, vAiO hath reconciled us to Himself by
Jesus Christ;" and John iii. 16: "God so loved the world,
that He gave His only-begotten Son." This point should
never be forgotten in the idea which w^e form of expiation. —
The verb irporiOevat,, to put hefore, may signify in the middle,
either : to exJiibit, present piiMicly (in view of oneself), or to
set he/ore oneself in the innermost shrine of tlie spirit ; to
decide, to design heforehand within oneself. For the pre-
position TTpo may have the local meaning in front of or the
temporal meaning before. Both significations of the verb
have been used here, and in favour of both numerous ex-
amples may be quoted in classic Greek. The second sense
is obviously the prevailing one in the 'New Testament ; comp.
Eom. i. 13, Eph. i. 9, etc., as well as the common use of the
word TTpodeai^ to denote God's etei^al plan (viii. 28 ; Eph.
iii. 11); see also Acts xxvii. 13. In favour of the first
meaning, there may be quoted, indeed, the phrase aprou rf;?
Trpodeaeox;, the shewhread, in the LXX. If we use it here, it
would make the apostle say : " whom God set forth publicly
as a propitiatory victim." This act of public showing forth
v.ould refer either to the exhibition of Jesus on the cross, or
to the proclamation of His death by the apostolic preaching.
The middle form (to set forth for oneself) would find its
explanation in the clause following : " for the demonstration
of His rigliteoustussy This meaning is not impossible. It is
adopted by the Vulgate, Luth., Beng., Thol., de Wette, Philip.,
Meyer, Hofm., Morison. But this idea of a public exhibition
of the person of Jesus appears to us to have about it some-
thing at once theatrical and superfluous. Independently of
what we have just been saying of the ordinary meaning of the
words TTpoTidevai, irpoOeai^, in the New Testament, the con-
text speaks strongly in favour of the other meaning. The
fundamental idea of the passage is the contrast between the
time of God's forbearance in regard to sin, and the decisive
moment when at once He carried out the universal expiation.
It is natural in this order of ideas to emphasize the fact that
God hsidi foreseen this final moment, and had provided Himself
leforehand with the victim by means of which the expiation
was to be accomplished. Thus the phrase : to set forth Icfore*

254 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

hand, already gives a hint of the contrast : at the present time,
ver. 26. Placed as it is at the head of the whole passage, it
brings out forcibly, at the same time, the incomparable gravity
of the work about to be described. The middle of the verb
refers to the inward resolution of God. In adopting this
meaning, we find ourselves at one with the ancient Greek
interpreters, Chrys., QEcum., Theoph. ; see, among the moderns,
Fritzsche. The word IXaarrjpLov, propitiatori/, belongs to that
host of Greek adjectives whose termination ('rjpi'0<;) signifies
what serves to. The meaning therefore is : " what serves to
render propitious, favourable." The verb IXdaKeaOai cor-
responds in the LXX. to ki'pper, the Piel of haphar, to cover.
Applied to the notion of sin, this Piel has a double sense :
either to pardon — the subject is then the offended one himself,
who, as it were, covers the sin that he may see it no more,
for example, Ps. Ixv. 4 — or to expiate, — tlie subject is then the
victim which covers {effaees) the sin with its blood, that the
judge may see it no more, for example, Ex. xxix. 36. In the
New Testament this verb occurs twice, Luke xviii. 13, where
the publican says to God : IXdcrdrjTt., show Thyself propitious
to me, which is equivalent to : forgive me ; and Heb. ii. 17:
eh TO i\d(TKea6av rd^ dfjLapTia^;, to expiate the sins of the
people. We find in these same two passages the two mean-
ings of the term in the Old Testament. The etymology of
this verb iXdaiceaOaL is the adjective i\ao<;, favourable, pro-
pitious (probably connected with eXeo?, mercifid). To explain
the word lXa(m]pLov in our text, very many commentators,
Orig., Theoph., Er., Luth., Calv., Grot., Vitringa, and among
the moderns, Olsh., ThoL, Philip., etc., have had recourse
to the technical meaning which it has in the LXX., where it
denotes the propitiatory, or lid of the ark of the covenant.
With this meaning the substantive understood would be
eTrldefia, lid, which is sometimes joined to the adjective, for
example, Ex. xxv. 17. As is well known, the high priest, on
the day of atonement, sprinkled this lid with the blood of the
victim (Lev. xvi. 14 et seq.). On this account these com-
mentators hold that it was here regarded by Paul as the type
of Christ, whose shed blood covers the sin of the world. The
term is found in this sense, Heb. ix. 5. We do not, however,
think this interpretation admissible. 1. If the matter in

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 255

question were a well-known definite object, the only one of
its kind, the article to could not be omitted. 2. The Epistle
to the Komans is not a book which moves, like the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in the sphere of Levitical symbolism ; there
is nothing here to indicate that the term is applied to an
object belonging to the Israelitish cultus. 3. Gess justly
observes that if this type had been familiar to St. Paul, it
would have been found elsewhere in his letters ; and if it were
not so, the term would have been unintelligible to his readers.
4. In all respects the figure would be a strange one. What
a comparison to make of Jesus Christ crucified with a lid
sprinkled with blood ! 5. Give to the verb Trpoedero which-
ever of the two meanings you choose, the figure of the
propitiatory remains unsuitable. In the sense of exhibiting
publicly, there is a contradiction between this idea of publicity
and the part assigned to the propitiatory in the Jewish cultus;
for this object remained concealed in the sanctuary, the high
priest alone could see it, and that only once a year, and
through a cloud of smoke. And if the verb be explained in
the sense which we have adopted, that of esiablishing before-
hand, it is stiU more impossible to apply this idea of an
eternal purpose, either to a material object like the pro-
pitiatory itself, or to its typical connection with Jesus Christ.
We must therefore understand the word tXacrrrjpiov in a very
wide sense : a means of propitiation. After reading Morison,
we cannot venture to define more strictly, and to translate :
a victim of propitiation, as if there were to be understood tlie
substantive Ovjjua {victim). For this meaning of the term used
here does not seem to be sufficiently proved by the passages
alleged (see the examples quoted by Thol., de Wette, Meyer,
with Morison's criticism). The English commentator himself
takes the word IXaaTrjpiov as a masculine adjective, agreeing
with the relative 6v : " Jesus Christ, whom God set forth as
making propitiation." Such is the explanation of the Peschito,
Thomas Aquinas, Er., Mel., etc. It is certainly allowable.
But in this sense would not Paul rather have used the
masculine substantive IXaarij^ ? The word IXaarijpta is
indeed found, not IXaarripLoc (Hofni.). We therefore hold
by the generally received interpretation, which makes the term
lXaaTi]piov a neuter substantive (originally the neuter of the

256 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

adjective ; comp. acoTTjptov, 'X^apio-rrjfyiov, etc.). As to the idea
of sacrifice, if it is not in the word itself, it follows from its
connection with the following clause : It/ His Mood (see below).
For what is a means of propitiation hy hlood, if it is not a
sacrifice ? A question may here be raised : if it is God Him-
self who, as we have just said, has established this means of
pardon of His free grace, what purpose then was this means
to serve ? For it cannot obtain for us anything else than w^e
possessed already, the Divine love. This objection rests on
the false idea that expiation is intended to originate a senti-
ment which did not exist in God before. What it produces
is such a change in the relation between God and the creature,
that God can henceforth display toward sinful man one of
the elements of His nature rather than another. The feeling
of the divine mind shows itself in the foundation of the
expiatory work as compassion. But the propitiation once
effected, it can display itself in the new and higher form of
intimate communion. As Gess says : " Divine love manifests
itself in the gift of the Son, that it may be able afterwards to
diffuse itself in the heart by the gift of the Spirit." There are
therefore — 1. The love which precedes the propitiation, and
which determines to effect it ; and 2. Love such that it can
display itself, once the propitiation is effected.

The clause Sta [t^?] irlcneoa^, hj faith, is wanting in the
Alcco., which, however, is not enough to render it suspicious.
Five ]\Ijj. (Alex, and Greco-Lat.) omit the article t?}? {the,
before faith). It would be impossible to explain why this
word had been rejected if it existed originally in the text. It
has therefore been added to give the notion of faith a more
definite sense : the well-known faith in Jesus. But it was
not on this or that particular faith the apostle wished here to
insist ; it was on faith in its very idea, in opposition to works.
— On what does the clause depend : hia Trto-reo)?, hy faith ?
According to some ancients and Philippi : on irpoiOero {Re set
forth, or established beforehand). But it is difficult to conceive
what logical relation there can be between the ideas of setting
forth, or establishing, and a clause such as by faith. The only
natural connection of this clause is with the word IXaarrjpiov
{means of propitiation) : " God has established Jesus before-
hand as the means of propitiation through faith," which

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 267

signifies that the efficacy of this means was from the first
bound by the divine decree to the condition of faith. God
eternally determined within Himself the means of pardon, but
as eternally He stipulated with Himself that the condition on
which this means should become available for each individual
should be faith, neither more nor less. This idea is important ;
the subjective condition of faith entered as an integral element
into the very decree of amnesty (the 7rp66ecTi<;). This is what
we shall find afterwards expressed in the words 01/9 Trpoiyva),
whom He foreknew (as His own by faith), viii. 29. The clause
following : in or by His blood, is connected by most commen-
tators (Luth., Calv., Olsh., Thol., Morison) with the word
faith : " by faith in His bloods Grammatically this connec-
tion is possible ; comp. Eph. i. 1 5. And it is the interpre-
tation, perhaps, which has led to the article t^? being added
before Trwrreo)?. But it should certainly be rejected. The
idea requiring a determining clause is not faith, which is clear
of itself, but the means of propitiation. In a passage entirely
devoted to the expounding of the fact of expiation, Paul could
not possibly fail to indicate the manner in which the means
operated. We therefore find the notion of propitiation qualified
by two parallel and mutually completing clauses : the first,
by faith, indicating the subjective condition ; and the second,
by His blood, settuig forth the historical and objective condition
of the efficacy of the means. Propitiation does not take place
except through faith on the part of the saved, and through
blood on the part of the Saviour. The attempt of Meyer,
Hofmann, etc., to make this clause dependent on irpoidero
(" He set Him forth or established Him beforehand . . .
through His blood ") is unnatural. To present or establish a
person through or in his blood, would not only be an obscure
form of speech, but even offensively harsh. — According to
Lev. xvii. 11, the soul of man, the principle of life, is in the
blood. The blood flowing forth is the life exhaling. Now
the wilful sinner has deserved death. Having used the gift
of life to revolt against Him from whom he holds it, it is just
that this gift should be withdrawn from him. Hence the
sentence : " In the day thou sinnest, thou shalt die." Every
act of sin should thus, in strict justice, be followed by death,
the violent and instant death of its author. The sinner, it is

GODET. R ROM. I.

258 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

true, no longer understands this ; for sin stupifies the con-
science at the same time that it corrupts the heart and
perverts the will. Such, then, is the law which must bo set
in the light of day before pardon is granted, and that it may
be granted. Otherwise the sovereign majesty of God on the
one side, and the criminal character of the sinner on the other,
would remain shrouded in the conscience of the pardoned
sinner ; and such a pardon, instead of laying a foundation for
his restoration, would consummate his degradation and entail
his eternal ruin. Thus are justified the two qualifications of
the means of propitiation indicated here by the apostle : in
hlood and h^/ faith ; in other terms — 1. The judgment of God on
sin by the shedding of Uood ; 2. The adherence of the guilty
to this judgment loj faitJi. The apostolic utterance may con-
sequently be paraphrased thus : " Jesus Christ, whom God
settled beforehand as the means of propitiation on the con-
dition of faith, through the shedding of His blood."

Blood does not certainly denote the holy consecration of
life in general. It is purely arbitrary to seek any other
meaning in the word than it naturally expresses, the fact of a
violent and bloody death. This signification is specially
obvious in a passage where the word is found in such direct
connection with IXaarTjptov (■pivpitiation), in which there is
concentrated the whole symbolism of the Jewish sacrifices.

The relation commonly maintained between propitiation
(the act which renders God favourable) and hlood is this : the
blood of the Messiah, shed as an equivalent for that of sinners,
is the indemnity offered to God's justice to purchase the
pardon granted by love. But it must be observed that this
relation is not stated by the apostle himself, and that the
term IXdaKea-dat, to render propitious, does not necessarily
contain the idea of an indemnity paid in the form of a quanti-
tative equivalent. The word denotes in general the act,
whatever it be, in consequence of which God, who was dis-
playing His wrath, is led to display His grace, and to pardon.
This propitiatory act is, Luke xviii. 13, 14, the cry of the
penitent publican ; Ps. li. 1 7, the sacrifice of a broken and
contrite heart. In the supreme and final redemption which
we have in Christ, the way of propitiation is more painful and
decisive. The apostle has just told us in what it consists • he

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 259

proceeds in the words which follow to explain to us its
object : for tlie demonstration of His righteousness.

The term demonstration is remarkable. If the apostle had
in view a payment offered to justice in compensation for the
death which sinful men have merited, he would rather have
said : " for the satisfaction of His righteousness." Tlie word
manifestation seems to belong to a somewhat different order
of ideas. But let us begin with fixing the meaning of the
principal expression : the righteousness of God. Luther has
connected it with justification. But in this case the contrast
with the time of God's long-suffering, ver. 26, becomes unin-
telligible, and the two last terms of the same verse : " that He
might be just and the justifler" could not be distinguished
from one another. So all interpreters agree to take the word
as indicating a divine attribute which, long veiled, was put
in the light of day by the cross. Which attribute is it ?
Righteousness sometimes denoting moral perfection in general,
each commentator has taken the term used by Paul as ex-
pressing the special attribute which agreed best with his
system in regard to the work of redemption. It has been
taken to express — (1) Goodness (Theodor., Abel., Grot,
Semi., etc.) ; (2) Veracity or fidelity (Ambr., Beza, Turret.) ;
(3) Holiness (Nitzsch, Neand., Hofm., Lipsius) ; (4) Eighteous-
ness as justifying and sanctifying (the Greek Fathers, Mel.,
Gal v., Oltram.), — this meaning is almost identical with Luther's ;
(5) Eighteousness in so far as it carries the salvation of the
elect to its goal ; such is the meaning of Eitschl, which comes
very near No. 3 ; (G) Retributive justice in God, considered here
specially as the principle of the punishment of sin (de Wette,
Mey., Philip.). The first five meanings all fall before one
common objection ; the Greek language, and Paul's vocabulary
in particular, have special terms to express each of those
particular attributes : 'xpv(^totv^> goodness ; aXrjOeia, veracity ;
TTto-Tf 9, faithfulness ; %a/3t?, grace ; a^iwavvr), holiness. Why
not use one of these definite terms, instead of introducing into
this so important didactic passage a term fitted to occasion the
gravest misunderstandings, if it was really to be taken in a
sense different from its usual and natural signification ? Now
this signification is certainly that of No. 6 : righteousness, as
the mode of action whereby God maintains the right of every

260 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

being, and consequently order throughout the whole moral
universe, blessing him who has respect to this order, visiting
with punishment him who violates it. The essence of God
is the absolute love of the good, His holiness (Isa. vi. 3 :
" Holy, holy, holy " . . .). Now, the good is order, the normal
relation between all free beings,^ from God Himself to the last
of them. The attribute of righteousness, eternally latent in
holiness, passes into the active state with the appearance of
the free creature. For in the fact of freedom there was
included the possibility of disorder, and this possibility soon
passed into reality. God's horror at evil. His holiness, thus
displays itself in the form of righteousness preserving order
and maintaining right. Now, to maintain order without sup-
pressing liberty, there is but one means, and that is punishment.
Punishment is order in disorder. It is the revelation of
disorder to the sinner's conscience by means of suffering. It
is consequently, or at least may be, the point of departure for
the re-establishment of order, of the normal relation of free
beings. Thus is explained the notion of the righteousness of
God, so often proclaimed in Scripture (John xvii. 25 ; 2 Thess.
i. 5 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Eev. xvi. 5, xix. 2, 11, etc.) ; and
especially Eom. ii. 5 et seq., where we see the BL/caioKpLo-ia,
the just judgment, distributing among men wrath and tribula-
tion (vv. 8, 9), glory and peace (vv. 7-10). — This meaning,
which we give with Scripture to the word righteousness, and
which is in keeping with its generally received use, is also
the only one, as we shall see, which suits the context of this
passage, and especially the words which follow.

How was the cross the manifestation of the righteousness of
God ? In two ways so closely united, that either of them
separated from the other would lose its value. 1. By the
very fact of Christ's sufferings and bloody death. If Paul
does not see in this punishment a quantitative equivalent of
the treatment which every sinner had incurred, this is what
clearly appears from such sayings as 2 Cor. v. 21: " God
made Rim sin for us; " Gal. iii. 13 : " Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.''
Now, herein precisely consists the manifestation of the right-
eousness wrought out on the cross. God is here revealed as
* See E, Naville, Le probUme du mal, first discourse.

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 261

one against whom no creature can revolt without meriting
death ; and the sinner is liere put in his place in the dust as
a malefactor worthy of death. Such is the objective manifes-
tation of righteousness. 2. This demonstration, however
striking, would be incomplete without the subjective or moral
manifestation which accompanies it. Every sinner might be
called to die on a cross. But no sinner was in a condition to
undergo this punishment as Jesus did, accepting it as deserved.
This is what He alone could do in virtue of His holiness.^
The calm and mute resignation with which He allowed Him-
self to be led to the slaughter, manifested the idea which He
Himself formed of the majesty of God and the judgment He
was passing on the sin of the world ; from His cross there
rose the most perfect homage rendered to the righteousness of
God. In this death the sin of mankind was therefore doubly
judged, and the righteousness of God doubly manifested, — by
the external fact of this painful and ignominious punishment,
and by the inward act of Christ's conscience, which ratified
this dealing of which sin was the object in His person. — But
now it will be asked what rendered such a demonstration
necessary : Because, says St. Paul, of the tolerance exercised in
regard to sins past.

For four thousand years the spectacle presented by mankind
to the whole moral universe (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 9) was, so to
speak, a continual scandal With the exception of some great
examples of judgments, divine righteousness seemed to be
asleep ; one might even have asked if it existed. Men sinned
here below, and yet they lived. They sinned on, and yet
reached in safety a hoary old age ! . . . Where were the wages
of sin ? It was this relative impunity which rendered a
solemn manifestation of righteousness necessary. Many com-
mentators have completely mistaken the meaning of this
passage, by giving to the word irdpecrc^;, which we have trans-
lated tolerance, the sense oi pardon (Orig., Luth., Calv., Calov. ;
see also the Geneva translation of 1557, and, following it,
Osterv. etc.). This first mistake has led to another. There
has been given to the preposition hid the meaning of by, which
it cannot have when governing the accusative, or it has been

^ " 0 riffhteous Father, the world hath not known Thea j but I have known
Thoe," John xvii. 26.

262 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

translated in riew of, which would have required the preposi-
tion eU. The first error lies in confounding the term Trdpeai^
(tolerance, impunity) with d^eai<; (remission, pardon). The
second of these substantives comes from the verb a^levai,, to
send aioay, dismiss, pardon (remittere) ; while the first used
here comes from the verb iraplevai, to let pass, neglect, not to
occupy oneself with (prcetermiftere) ; nearly the same idea as
that expressed by the word vTrepcBelv, to close the eyes to, Acts
xviii. 30. The signification of the verb irapLevai appears
clearly from the two following passages : Sir. xxiii. 2 : " Lest
sins should remain unpunished {fir) TrapccovTac ra afiapTri-
fiara);" and Xeno-phon, Hippar chic. vii. 10 : "Such sins must
not be allowed to pass unpunished (ra ovv Totavra afiapTrj'
fiara ov ')(pr) iraplevaL aKoKacna)." It is worthy of remark
also that in these two places sin is designated by the same
word dfjidpTrjfia as Paul employs in our passage ; sin in the
form of positive fault, transgression. The real sense of Trdpeo-L^
is therefore not doubtful. It has been given by Theodor., Grot.,
Beng. ; it is now almost universally received (ThoL, Olsh., Mey.,
Fritzs., Eiick, de Wette, Philip, etc.).^ The Bid can thus
receive its true meaning (with the accusative) : on accotcnt of ;
and the idea of the passage becomes clear : God judged it
necessary, on account of the impunity so long enjoyed by
those myriads of sinners who succeeded one another on the
earth, at length to manifest His righteousness by a striking
act ; and He did so by realizing in the death of Jesus the
punishment which each of those sinners would have deserved
to undergo. — Eitschl, who, on account of his theory regarding
the righteousness of God (see on i. 18), could not accept this
meaning, supposes another interpretation (11. p. 217 et seq.).
Tolerance {irdpeacs:) is not, according to him, contrasted with
merited punishment, but with the pardon which God has
finally granted. Ver. 25 would thus signify that till the
coming of Jesus Christ, God had only exercised patience with-
out pardoning, but that in Christ the righteousness of God
(His faithfulness to the salvation of His elect) had advanced

^ Morison (p. 323) refers to the strange misunderstanding of Chrysostom,
reproduced by (Ecumen., Theophyl., Phot., which makes ^xptffts (strictly:
relaxation of the muscles) denote here the paralysis, the spiritual death of the
•iuiicr. Hence probably the reading vufuatg (ms. 46).

CHAP. IIT. 25, 26. 263

SO far as to give complete pardon. But where then, asks Gess,
is this only, so necessary to indicate the advance from tolerance
to pardon ? The natural contrast to impunity is not pardon,
but punishment ; comp. ii. 4, 5, and the parallel passage to
ours. Acts xvii. 30, 31 : " The times of ignorance God winked
at, but now commandeth men to repent, because He hath
appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteous-
ness" Finally, it is impossible on this interpretation to give
a natural meaning to the words on account of. For pardon
was not given lecause of the impunity exercised toward those
sins. Paul would have required to say, either : because of
those sins themselves, or: following up the long tolerance
exercised toward them.

Several commentators (Calovius, for example) refer the
expression : sins that are past, not to the sins of mankind who
lived before Christ, but to those committed by every believer
before his conversion. It is difficult in this sense to explain
the words which follow : at this tims, which form an antithesis
to the former. We must apply them to the moment when
each sinner in particular believes. But this meaning does not
correspond to the gravity of the expression : at this time, in
which the apostle evidently contrasts the period of completion
with that of general impunity, and even with the eternal
decree (the TrpoOecns:).

It may be further asked if those sins that ar • past are those
of all mankind anterior to Christ, or perhaps, as 1 hilip^)i thinks,
only those of the Jews. The argument which this com-
mentator derives from the meaning of IXaaTijpcov, the lid of
the ark, the propitiatory so called, has of course no weight
with us. Might one be found in the remarkable parallel,
Heb. ix. 15: "The transgressions that were under the first
testament " ? No, for this restricted application follows
naturally from the particular aim of the Epistle to the
Hebrews (comp. for example, ii. 16). It may even be said
that the demonstration of which the apostle speaks was less
necessary for Israel than for the rest of mankind. For the
Bacrifices instituted by God were already a homage rendered
to His righteousness. But this homage was not sufficient ;
for there was wanting in it that which gives value to the
sacrifice of Christ ; the victim tmderwent death, but did not

264 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

accept it. Hence it was that the death of the Messiah neces-
sarily closed the long series of the Levitical sacrifices. No
more can we receive the opinion of Beza, Cocceius, Morison,
who think the siiis that are past are those of the faithful of
the Old Testament whom God pardoned from regard to the
future sacrifice of Christ. The article tmv (" the sins ") does
not admit of this restriction, which there is nothing else to
indicate. And the sacrifice of Christ cannot be explained here
by an end so special.

But if it is asked why Paul gives as the reason for this
sacrifice only the past and not the future sins of mankind, as
if the death of Christ did not apply equally to the latter, the
answer is easy, from the apostle's standpoint : the righteous-
ness of God once revealed in the sacrifice of the cross, this
demonstration remains. Whatever happens, nothing can again
efface it from the history of the world, nor from the conscience
of mankind. Henceforth no illusion is possible ; all sin must
be pardoned — or judged.

Eegarded from the point of view here taken by the apostle,
the death of Jesus is in the history of humanity, something
like what would emerge in the life of a sinner had he a time
of perfect lucidity when, his conscience being miraculously
brought into one with the mind of God regarding sin, he
should judge himself as God judges him. Such a moment
would be to this man the starting-point of a total transforma-
tion. Thus the demonstration of righteousness given to the
world by the cross of Christ at the close of the long economy
of sin tolerated, founded the new epoch, and with the possi-
bility of pardon established the principle of the radical
renewal of humanity.

Ver. 26. The first words of this verse : during the forbear-
ance of God, depend naturally on the word irdp6ai<^, tolerance :
" the tolerance (exercised) during the forbearance of God."
It is less simple to connect this regimen with the participle
trpoyeryovoTcov : " committed formerly during the forbearance
of God." For the principal idea in what precedes, that which
needs most to be explained, is that of the tolerance, and not
that expressed by this participle. Meyer gives to the pre-
position iv the meaning of by: "the tolerance exercised
toward the sins that are past by the forbearance of God." But

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 266

the following antithesis : at this time, imperatively requires
the tem^poral meaning of the clause iv Ty avo)(fi- — At the first
glance it seems strange that in a proposition of which God is
the subject, the apostle should say, not : " during His forbear-
ance," but : " during the forbearance of God." The reason of
this apparent incorrectness is not, as has been thought, the
remoteness of the subject, nor the fact that Paul is now
expressing himself as it were from his own point of view, and
not from that of God (Mey.). Eather it is that which is
finely given by Matthias : by the word God the apostle brings
more into relief the contrast between men's conduct (their
constant sins) and God's (His long-suffering).

We have seen that ver. 26 should begin with the words
reproduced from ver. 25 : for the demonstration of His righteous-
ness. To what purpose this repetition ? Had not the reason
which rendered the demonstration of righteousness necessary
been sufficiently explained in ver. 25 ? Why raise this point
emphatically once more to explain it anew ? This form is
surprising, especially in a passage of such extraordinary con-
ciseness. De Wette and Meyer content themselves with
saying : Eepetition of the eU evheu^iv {for the demonstration),
ver. 25. But again, why the change of preposition: in
ver. 25, et? ; here, irpo^'l We get the answer: a matter of
style (Mey.), or of euphony (Gess), wholly indifferent as to
meaning. With a writer like Paul — our readers, we hope, are
convinced of this — such answers are insufficient. Elickert and
Hofmann, to avoid these difficulties, think that the w^ords :
for the demonstration . . . should not be made dependent, like
the similar words of ver. 25, on the verb irpoeOeTo, had estah-
lished, but on the substantive forbearance : " during the time
of His forbearance, a forbearance which had in view the mani-
festation of His righteousness at a later period." De Wette
replies, with reason, that were we to connect these words with
so subordinate an idea, the reader's mind would be diverted
from the essential thought of the entire passage. Besides,
how can we fail to see in the tt^o? evSec^iv (for the manifesta'
tio7i) of ver. 26 the resumption of the similar expression,
ver. 25 ? The fact of this repetition is not, as it seems to us,
80 difficult to explain. The moral necessity of such a mani-
festation had been demonstrated by the tolerance of God in

266 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the past ; for it had thrown a veil over the righteousness of
God. But the explanation was not complete. The object to
be gained in the future by this demonstration must also be
indicated. And this is the end served by the repetition of
this same expression in ver. 26 : "for the demonstration, I
say, in view o/" . . . Thus at the same time is explained the
change of preposition. In ver. 25 the demonstration itself
was regarded as an end : " whom He set forth beforehand as a
propitiation for the demonstration {eh, with a view to) "...
But in ver. 2 6 this same demonstration becomes a means, with
a view to a new and more remote end : "for the demonstration
of His righteousness, that He might he (literally, with a view
to being) just, and the justifier "... The demonstration is
always the end, no doubt, but now it is only the near and
immediate object — such is exactly the meaning of the Greek
preposition tt/do?, w^hich is substituted for the eh of ver. 25 —
compared with a more distant and final end which opens up
to view, and for which the apostle now reserves the eh (with
a view to) : " unth a view to being just, and the justifier."
Comp. on the relation of these two prepositions, Eph. iv. 1 2 ;
" for (tt/so?) the perfecting of the saints with a view to a {eh)
work of ministry." Here we may have a convincing proof
that nothing is accidental in the style of a man like Paul.
Never did jeweller chisel his diamonds more carefully than
the apostle does the expression of his thoughts. This delicate
care of the slightest shades is also shown in the addition of
the article Trjv before evhei^iv in ver. 26, an addition suffi-
ciently attested by the four Alex. Mjj., and by a Mj. from
each of the other two families (D P). In ver. 25 the notion
of demonstration was yet abstract : " in demonstration of
righteousness." In ver. 26 it is now known; it is a concrete
fact which should conspire to a new end ; hence the addition
of the article : " for that manifestation of which I speak, with
a view to " . . . The following words : at this time, express
one of the gravest thoughts of the passage. They bring out
the full solemnity of the present epoch marked by this un-
exampled appearance, preordained and in a sense awaited by
God Himself for so long. For without this prevision the
long forbearance of the forty previous centuries would have
been morally impossible; comp. Acts xvii. 30 (in regard to

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 267

the Gentiles), and Heb. ix. 26 : "But now once in tlie end
of the ages hath He appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice
of Himself " (in regard to Israel).

And what was the end with a view to which this demon-
stration of righteousness was required at this time ? The
apostle answers : that He might be just, and a justifier — that
is to say, " that while being and remaining just, God might
justify." It was a great problem, a problem worthy of divine
wisdom, which the sin of man set before God — to remain just
while justifying (declaring just) man who had become unjust.
God did not shrink from the task. He had even solved the
difficulty beforehand in His eternal counsel, before creating
man free ; otherwise, would not this creation have merited the
charge of imprudence ? God had beside Him, in Christ {nrpoi-
Oero, ver. 25 ; comp. Eph. L 3, 4), the means of being at once
just and jtistifier — that is to say, just while justifying, and
justifying while remaining just. — The words : that He might
he just, are usually understood in the logical sense : " that He
might he known to be just." Gess rightly objects to this
attenuation of the word he. The second predicate : and the
justifier, does not suit this idea of heing known. If God did
not once show Himself perfectly just, would He be so in
reality? Gess rightly says: "A judge who hates evil, but
does not judge it, is not just : if the righteousness of God did
not show itself, it would not exist." In not smiting those
sinners at once with the thunderbolt of His vengeance, those
who had lived during the time of forbearance, God had not
$liown Himself just; and if He had continued to act thus
indefinitely, mankind and the entire moral universe would
have had good right to conclude that He was not just. It is
obvious that the words : that He might he just, do not, strictly
speaking, express a new idea ; they reproduce in a different
form the reason for the demonstration of righteousness already
given in ver. 25 in the words : " because of the tolerance
exercised toward sins that were past." If this tolerance
had not at length issued in a manifestation of righteousness,
righteousness itself would have been annihilated. The thought
is nevertheless of supreme importance here, at the close of
this exposition. Men must not imagine, as they might easily
do, especially with pardon before them, that the righteousness

268 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

of God is somehow completely absorbed in His grace through
the act of justifying. There is in tlie firm and immoveable
will of God to maintain right and order in the universe — His
justice, that is to say — the principle of the justification of
believers no doubt, but not less certainly that of the judgment
of the impenitent. Now, if God did not show Himself just
at the moment when He justifies the unjust, there would be
in such a pardon what would plunge sinners into the most
dangerous illusion. They could no longer seriously suppose
that they were on their way to give in an account ; and judg-
ment would burst on them as a terrible surprise. This is
what God could not desire, and hence He has exercised the
divine privilege of pardon only through means of a striking
and solemn manifestation of His righteousness. He would
really have given up His justice if, in this supreme moment
of His manifestation, He had not displayed it brightly on the
earth.

After having secured His righteousness, He is able to justify
the unjust; for He has, in Christ, the means oi justifying him
justly. We have seen that the cross re-establishes order by
putting each in his place, the holy God on His throne, rebel-
lious man in the dust. So long as this homage, making
reparation for the past, remains without us, it does not save
us ; but as soon as we make it ours hy faith in Jesus, it
avails for us, and God can justly absolve us. This is what is
expressed by the last words, to which the passage pointed
from the first : and the justifier of him who is of the faith in
Jesus. By adhering to this manifestation of divine righteous-
ness accomplished in Jesus, the believer makes it morally his
own. He renders homage personally to the right which God
has over him. He sees in his own person the malefactor
worthy of death, who should have undergone and accepted
what Jesus imderwent and accepted. He exclaims, like that
Bechuana in his simple savage language: Away from that,
Christ ; that's my place ! Sin is thus judged in his con-
science, as it was in that of the dying Jesus — that is to say,
as it is by the holiness of God Himself, and as it never could
have been by the ever imperfect repentance of a sinner. By
appropriating to himself the homage rendered to the majesty
of God by the Crucified One, the believer is himself crucified

CHAP. III. 26, 26. 269

as it were in the eyes of God ; moral order is re-established,
and judgment can take end by an act of absolution. As to
the impenitent sinner, who refuses to the divine majesty the
homage contained in the act of faith, the demonstration of
righteousness given on the cross remains as the proof that he
will certainly meet with this divine attribute in the judgment.
— The phrase : to he of the faith, has nothing surprising in
Paul's style; comp. the elvat ex, ii. 8 ; Gal. iii. 7, 10, etc. It
forcibly expresses the new mode of being which becomes the
believer's as soon as he ceases to draw his righteousness from
himself and derives it wholly from Jesus. — Three Mjj. read
the accusative ^Irjaovv, which would lead to the impossible
sense : " and the justifier of Jesus by faith." This error
probabl)^ arises from the abridged form IT in the ancient
Mjj., which might easily be read IN. Two MSS. (F G) wholly
reject this name (see Meyer).^ The phrase : " him who is of
the faith," without any indication of the object of faith, would
not be impossible. This reading has been accepted by Oltra-
mare. But two MSS. of the ninth century do not suffice to
justify it. Nothing could better close this piece than the
name of the historical personage to whose unspeakable love
mankind owes this eternal blessing.

The Expiation.

We have endeavoured to reproduce exactly the meaning of
the expressions used by the apostle in this important passage,
and to rise to the sum of the ideas which it contains. In what
does the apostolical conception, as we have understood it, differ
from the current theories on this fundamental subject ?

If we compare it first with the doctrine generally received in
the church, the point on which the difference seems to us to
bear is this : in the ecclesiastical theory God demands the
punishment of Christ as a satisfaction to Himself, inasmuch as
His justice must have an equivalent for the penalty merited by
man, if divine love is to be free to pardon. From the point
of view to which the exposition of the apostle brings us, this
equivalent is not intended to satisfy divine justice except by
manifestiTig it, and so re-establishing the normal relation between
God and the guilty creature. By sin, in short, God loses His
supreme place in the conscience of the creature ; by this demon-

' Tiscliendorf, eighth edition, does not mention this omission. Could he have

fouiul it to be not the fact ?

270 JTJSTIFIOATION BY FAITH.

stration of righteousness He recovers it. In consequence of sin^
the creature no longer comprehends and feels the gravity of his
rebellion ; by this manifestation God makes it palpable to him.
On this view it is not necessary that the sacrifice of reparation
should be the equivalent of the penalty incurred by the multi-
tude of sinful men, viewed as the sum of the merited sufferings ;
it is enough that it be so as regards the physical and moral
character of the sufferings due to sin in itself.

The defenders of the received theory will no doubt ask if, on
this view, the expiation is not pointed simply to the conscience
of the creature, instead of being also a reparation offered to
God Himself But if it is true that a holy God cannot pardon,
except in so far as the pardon itself establishes the absolute
guilt of sin and the inviolability of the divine majesty, and so
includes a guarantee for the re-establishment of order in the
relation between the sinner and God, and if this condition is
only found in the punishment of sin holily undertaken and
humbly accepted by Him who alone was able to do so, is not
the necessity of expiation in relation to the absolute Good, to
God Himself, demonstrated? His holiness would protest against
every pardon which did not fulfil the double condition of glorify-
ing His outraged majesty and displaying the condemnation of
sin. Now, this double end is only gained by the expiatory
sacrifice. But the necessity of this sacrifice arises from His
whole divine character, in other words, from His holiness, the
principle at once of His love and righteousness, and not exclu-
sively of His righteousness. And, in truth, the apostle nowhere
expresses the idea of a conflict between righteousness and love
as requiring the expiation. It is grace that saves, and it saves
by the demonstration of righteousness which, in the act of
expiation, restores God to His place and man to his. Such is
the condition on which divine love can pardon without entail-
ing on the sinner the final degradation of his conscience and
the eternal consolidation of his sin.

This view also evades the grand objection which is so gene-
rally raised in our day against a satisfaction made to righteous-
ness by means of the substitution of the innocent for the guilty.
No doubt the ordinary theory of expiation may be defended by
asking who would be entitled to complain of such a transaction :
not God who establishes it, nor the Mediator who voluntarily
sacrifices Himself, nor man whose salvation is effected by it.
But, anyhow, this objection does not apply to the apostolical
conception as we have expounded it. For whenever it ceases
to be a question of legal satisfaction, and becomes a simple
demonstration of God's right, no ground remains for protesting
in the name of righteousnesa. Who could accuse God of un-

CHAP. III. 26, 26. 271

righteousness for having made use of Job and his sufferings to
prove to Satan that He can obtain from the children of the
dust a disinterested homage, a free submission, which is not
that of the mercenary ? Similarly, who can arraign the divine
righteousness for having given to sinful man, in the person of
Jesus, a convincing demonstration of the judgment which the
guilty one deserved at His hand ? Deserved, did I say ? of
the judgment with which He will visit him without fail if he
refuses to join by faith in that homage solemnly rendered to
God's rights, and rejects the reconciliation which God offers him
in this form.

It seems to us, then, that the true apostolical conception,
while firmly establishing the fact of expiation, which is, his-
torically speaking, — as no one can deny, — the distinctive feature
of Christianity, secures it from the grave objections which in
these days have led so many to look on this fundamental dogma
with suspicion.

But some would perhaps say : Such a view rests, as much as
the so-called orthodox theory, on notions of right and jtcstice,
which belong to a lower sphere, to the legal and juridical
domain. A noble and generous man will not seek to explain
his conduct by reasons taken from so external an order ; how
much less should we have recourse to them to explain that of
God ? — Those who speak thus do not sufficiently reflect that we
have to do in this question not with God in His essence, but
with God in His relation to free man. Now, the latter is not
holy to begin with ; the use which he makes of his liberty is
not yet regulated by love. The attribute of righteousness (the
firm resolution to maintain order, whose existence is latent in
the divine holiness) must therefore appear as a necessary safe-
guard as soon as liberty comes on the stage, and with it the
possibility of disorder ; and this attribute must remain in exer-
cise as long as the educational period of the life of the creature
lasts, that is to say, until he has reached perfection in love.
Then all those factors, right, law, justice, will return to their
latent state. But till then, God, as the guardian of the normal
relations between free beings, must keep by law and check by
punishment every being disposed to trample on His authority,
or on the liberty of his fellows. Thus it is that the work of
righteousness necessarily belongs to God's educating and redeem^
ing work, without which the world of free beings would soon
be no better than a chaos, from which goodness, the end of
creation, would be for ever banished. Blot out this factor from
the government of the world, and the free being becomes Titan,
no longer arrested by anything in the execution of any caprice.
God's place is overthrown, and the creatures destroy one another

272 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

mutually. It is common to regard love as the fundamental
feature of the divine character ; and in this way it is very diffi-
cult to reach the attribute of righteousness. Most thinkers,
indeed, do not reach it at all. This one fact should serve to
show the error in which they are entangled. Holy, holy, holy,
say the creatures nearest to God, when celebrating His perfec-
tion (Isa. vl), and not good, good, good. Holiness, such is the
essence of God ; and holiness is the absolute love of the good,
the absolute horror of evil. Hence it is not difficult to deduce
both love and righteousness. Love is the goodwill of God
toward all free beings who are destined to realize the good.
Love goes out to the individuals, as holiness to the good itself
wliich they ought to produce. Eighteousness, on the other
hand, is the firm purpose of God to maintain the normal rela-
tion between all these beings by His blessings and punishments.
It is obvious that righteousness is included no less necessarily
than love itself in the fundamental feature of the divine
character, holiness. It is no offence therefore to God to speak
of His justice and His rights. The exercise of a right is only
a shame when the being who exercises it makes it subservient
to the gratification of his egoism. It is, on the contrary, a glory
to one who, like God, knows that in preserving his place he is
securing the good of all others. For, as Gess admirably expounds
it, God, in maintaining His supreme dignity, preserves to the
creatures their most precious treasure, a God worthy of their
respect and love.

tFnjustified antipathy to the notions of right and justice, as
applied to God, has led contemporary thought to very divergent
and insufficient explanations of the death of Christ.

Some see nothing more in this event than an inevitable his-
torical result of the conflict between the holiness of Jesus and
the immoral character of His contemporaries. This solution
is well answered by Hausrath himself : " Our faith gives to the
question : Why did Christ require to die on the cross ? another
answer than that drawn from the history of his time. For the
history of the ideal cannot be an isolated and particular fact ;
its contents are absolute ; it has an eternal value which does not
belong to a given moment, but to the whole of mankind. Every
man should recognise in such a history a mystery of grace
consummated also for him'' {Neutest. Zeitgesch. I. 450).

Wherein consists this mystery of grace contained in the
Crucified One for every man ? In the fact, answer many, that
here we find the manifestation of divine love to mankind.
" The ray of love," says Pfleiderer, " such is the true saviour of
mankind. . . . And as to Jesus, He is the sun, the focus in
whom aU the rays of this light scattered elsewhere are concen •

CHAP. III. 25, 26. 273

fcrated" {Wisscnsch. Vortrdge uber religiose Frageii). On this
view, Jesus sacrificed Himself only to attest by this act of
devotion the full greatness of divine love. But what, then, is
a devotion which has no other object than to witness to itself ?
An exhibition of love, which might be compared to tliat of the
woman who committed suicide, a few years ago, to awake, as
she said, the dormant genius of her husband by this token of
her love. Besides, how could the sacrifice of his life made by
a man for his fellow-men demonstrate the love of God ? We
may, indeed, see in it the attestation of Irotkerly love in its
most eminent degree, but we do not find the love of the Father.
Others, finally, regard the death of Christ only as the cul-
minating point of His consecration to God and men, of His
holiness. " These texts," says Sabatier, after quoting Eom. vi.
and 2 Cor. v., " j)lace the value of the death of Jesus not in any
satisfaction whatever offered to God, but in the annihilation of
sin, which this death brings about " (L'aj). Paul, p. 202). To
the same effect M. de Pressense expresses himself thus: " This
generous suffering, which Jesus voluntarily accepts, is an act
of love and obedience ; and hence its restoring and redeeming
character. ... In the name of humanity Clirist reverses the
rebellion of Eden ; He hrings hack the heart of man to God. . . .
In the person of a holy victim, humanity returns to the God
who waited for it from the first days of the world " ( Vie de
Jesus, pp. 642 and 643). Most modern theories (Hofmann,
Ilitsclil), if we mistake not, are substantially the same, to wit,
the spiritual resurrection of humanity through Christ. By the
holiness He so painfully realized, and of which His bloody
death was the crown, Jesus has given birth to a humanity
which breaks with sin, and gives itself to God ; and God, fore-
seeing this future holiness of believers, and regarding it as
already realized, pardons their sins from love of this expected
perfection. But is this the apostle's view ? He speaks of a
demonstration of righteousness, and not only of holiness. Then
he ascribes to death, to blood, a peculiar and independent value.
So he certainly does in our passage, but more expressly still in
the words, v. 10 : " If, when we were enemies, we were recon-
ciled (justified, ver. 9) by His death (His blood, ver. 9), much
more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life {through
Him, ver. 9)." It is by His death, accordingly, that Jesus re-
conciles or justifies, as it is by His life that He sanctifies and
perfects salvation. Finally, the serious practical difficulty in
the way of this theory lies, as we think, in the fact that, like
the Catholic doctrine, it makes justification rest on sanctification
(present or future), while the characteristic of gospel doctrine,
what, to use Paul's language, may be called its folly, but what

GODET. S llOM. I.

274 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

is in reality its divine wisdom, is its founding justification on
the atonement perfected by Christ's blood, to raise afterwards
on this basis the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit.^

NINTH PASSAGE (III. 27-31).

The Harmony of this Mode of Justification with the true
Meaning of the Law,

The apostle had asserted, ver. 21, that the law and thi
■prophets themselves bear witness to the mode of justification
revealed in the gospel. This he demonstrates, first generally,
from the spirit of the law, then specially, from the example of
Abraham, in the two following pieces : chap. iii. 2 7-3 1 and
chap. iv. As the theme of the preceding piece was expressed
in the words of vv. 2 1 and 2 2 : righteousness of God revealed
without laiu . . . hy faith in Jesus Christ, that of the following
development is found in the words of ver. 21 : witnessed hy
the law and hy the prophets. We see how rigorously the apostle
adheres to order in his work.

The piece, vv. 27-31, argues from all that precedes to the
harmony of justification by faith with the Old Testament — ■
1 . Inasmuch as the law and the gospel equally exclude
justification by works, vv. 27 and 28; this is the negative
demonstration ; and 2. Inasmuch as only justification by faith
harmonizes with the Monotheism which is the doctrinal basis
of the whole Old Testament, vv. 29-31 ; such is the positive
demonstration.

Vv. 27, 28. " Where is the^ hoasting then ? It is excluded.
By what law ? of ivorJcs ? Nay, hut hy the law of faith. For ^
we judge that man is justified hy faith * without works of law''

' "We would not hold Professor Gess bound to all the views which we have
expressed in this excursus. But we must say, that if we have succeeded in
throwing any light on this passage of St. Paul, and on the fact of the atonement
{that depth into which the angels desire to look, 1 Pet. i. 12), we owe it chiefly
to that eminent theologian ; comp. especially, the two articles entitled, *' Zur
Lehre von der Versohnung," and " Die Nothwendigkeit des Siihnens Chris ti,"
in t\\Q JahrhUcher fur Deutsche Theol. 1857, 1858, and 1859.

■^ F G It., Or. (Lat. trans.) Aug. add trov after xccuxntrn {thy boasting).

' X A D E F G, It. : yap, for, instead of ow, tlien, which T. R. reads, with B
C K L P, Syr.

* T. II. places tri(rru before hxuiovo-^ai, with K L P, ?yr. , while all the rest
place it»a4*u<r6»i before rtrru.

CHAP. III. 27, 28. 275

— Ow, then : in consequence of the great fact which has been
explained, and of the means of justification which it implies
(vv. 23—26). — Kau%77<7t?, toasting, vainglory; this term
denotes not the ohject boasted of, but the act of self-glorifica-
tion. The article rj, the, marks this boasting as well known ;
it is therefore the boasting of the Jews which is referred to.
The word might be connected with the Kav^dcrOai iv Sew,
ii. 17, and understood of the glory which the Jews sought to
borrow from their exceptional position ; but the context, and
especially the following verse, prove that the apostle has in
view the pretension of the Jews to justify themselves by their
own works, instead of deriving their righteousness from the
work of Christ. — This pretension has been excluded for ever
by the work described, vv. 24—26. There remains nothing
else for man to do than to lay hold of it by faith. This ques-
tion has something of a triumphant character; comp. the
similar form, 1 Cor. i. 20. The self-righteousness of the Jews
is treated here as the wisdom of the Greeks is in that pas-
sage. The apostle seeks it, and before the cross it vanishes.
Hofmann understands this exclamation of the vainglory to
which even Christians might give themselves up : " Have we
then, we Christians, thus justified, whereof to boast ? " This
interpretation is bound up with that of the same author,
according to which the question, iii. 9 : " Have we any ad-
vantage (over those whom judgment will overtake) ? " is also
put in the moutli of Christians. But it is evident that, like
the question of ver. 9, this refers specially to Jewish pre-
judice ; for it is expressly combated in the following words,
ver. 29, and it is alluded to by the article rj, the, before
Kav')(riaifi. — Only the question arises. What leads the apostle
to put such a question here ? The answer seems to us to be
this. His intention in these few verses is to show the pro-
found harmony between the law and the gospel. Now the
conclusion to which he had been led by the searching study
of the law, vv. 9-2 0, was, that it was intended to shut the
mouths of all men, and of the Jews in particular, before God,
by giving them the knowledge of sin. Hence it followed that
the mode ot justification which best agreed with the law was
that which traced the origin of righteousness not to the works
of the law, by means of which man thinks that he can justify

276 JTJSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

himself, but to faith ; for, like the law itself, the righteousness
of faith brings all boasting to silence, so that the righteousness
of works, which lays a foundation for boasting, is contrary to
the law, while that of faith, which excludes it, is alone in
harmony with the law. And this is exactly what Paul brings
out in the following questions. — In these two questions the
term law is taken in a general sense. This word is often used
by Paul to denote a mode of action which is imposed on the
individual, a rule to which he is subject, a principle which
determines his conduct. Sometimes when thus understood it
is taken in a go^^d sense ; for example, viii. 2 : " the law of
the spirit of life which is in Jesus Christ ; " again it is used
in a bad sense ; so vii. 23 : " the law which is in my members ; "
or, again, it is applied in both ways, good and bad at once ;
com p. vii. 21. As Baur well says, the word law denotes in
general '' a formula which serves to regulate the relation
between God and man." The genitive rwv epycov, of works,
depends on a vo/jlov understood, as is proved by the repetition
of this word before Tricrrew?.

That glory which man derives from his self-righteousness,
and which the law had already foreclosed, has been finally
excluded. And by what means ? By a rule of works ?
Certainly not, for such a means would rather have promoted
it, but by that of faith (ver. 26). The apostle thus reaches
the striking result that tlie rule of works would contradict the
Jaw, and that the rule of faith is that which harmonizes with
it. — He here uses the word vo/jlo';, rule, probably because he
was speaking of excluding, and this requires something firm.

Ver. 28. The relation between this verse and the preceding
rests on the contrast between the two ideas Kav'^Tja-i^ and
irlaTei BiKaiovadai, boasting and heing justified hy faith. " Wo
exclude boasting in proportion as we affirm justification by
faith." — Several commentators read ovv, then, after T. Pt.,
which is supported by the Vat. and the Byzs. In that case
this verse would form the conclusion from what precedes :
** We conclude, then, that man "... But if the apostle were
concluding finally in ver. 28, why would he recommence to
argue in the following verse ? We must therefore prefer the
reading of the other Alexs. and the Greco-Lats., 7a/3, for :
*' For we deem, we assert that "... Another question is

CHAP. III. 29, 30. 277

Whether, with the Byzs., we are to put the word irlaTei, hy
faith, before the verb BcKaiovadai,, to he justified, or whether it
it is better to put it after, with the other two families, and so
give the idea of justification the dominant place over that of the
means of obtaining it. The connection with ver. 27 certainly
speaks in favour of the Byz. reading, which has the Peschito
for it. It is the idea oi being justified h/ faith, and not that
of hei7ig justified in general, which excludes boasting. — It is
worth remarking the word dvOpcoirov, man. This general
term is chosen designedly : " whatever bears the name of man,
Jew as well as Gentile, depends on the justification which is
of faith, and can have no other." If it is so, it is plain that
boasting is finally excluded. The apostle adds : without works
of law, that is to say, without participation in any of those
works which are wrought in the servile and mercenary spirit
which prevails under the rule of law (see on ver. 20). The
matter in question here is neither final salvation nor works
as fruits of faith {good works, Eph. ii. 10; Tit. iii. 8). For
these wiU be necessary in the day of judgment (see on ii. 13).

If it were otherwise, if the works of the law had not been
excluded by the great act of expiation described vv. 24-26,
and by the rule of faith involved in it, it would be found that
God provided for the salvation of a part of mankind only, and
forgot the rest. The unity of God is not compatible with
this difference in His mode of acting. Now the dogma of the
unity of God is the basis of the law, and of the whole of
Judaism. On this point, too, therefore the law is at one with
faith, vv. 29-31.

Vv. 29, 30. " Or is He the God of the Jews only?^ is He^
not also of the Gentiles ? Yes, of the Ge7itiles also : seeing ^ it
is one God, who shall bring 07ct the justification of the circum-
cised from faith, and who shall bring about thai of the uncir-
cumeised through faith." — The meaning of the i], or, when
prefixed to a question by Paul, is familiar to us : " Or if you
do not admit that " . . . ? This question therefore goes to show
that the negation of what precedes violates the Monotheism

* B and several Fathers : ^«y«v instead of f^ovav.

* T. R. reads "^i after ovx* with L P only.

' Instead of fru-rtp, which T. R. reads, with D E F G K 1< P. wp. find uvsp in
« A B C.

278 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

SO dear to the Jews, and in which they gloried. The genitive
*IovBaL(ov, of Jews, used without the article, denotes the category.
Meyer refuses to take this word as the complement of the
predicate 6eo9, God, understood; but wrongly; the natural
meaning is : " Is God the God of the Jews ? " Comp. ii. 2 9,
1 Cor. xiv. 33, and Luke xx. 38 (with Matt. xxii. 32).
Otherwise we should require to apply here the phrase ehal
TLvo<;, to he the property of (to belong to), which does not cor-
respond to the relation between God and man. — To the ques-
tion : Is He not also the God of the Gentiles ? Paul could answer
with assurance: yes, of the Gentiles also; for the entire Old
Testament had already drawn from Monotheism this glorious
inference. The psalms celebrated Jehovah as the God of all
the earth, before whom the nations walk with trembling
(Ps. xcvi.— xcviii., c). Jeremiah called Him (x. 7) the King
of nations ; and the apostle himself had demonstrated in chap. i.
the existence of a universal divine revelation, which is the
first foundation of universalism.

Ver. 30. The Alex, read elirep: if truly. This reading
might suffice if the apostle were merely repeating the prin-
ciple of the unity of God as the basis of the preceding
assertion : " if indeed God is one." But he goes further ; this
principle of the unity of God serves him as a point of de-
parture from which to draw important inferences expressed
in a weighty proposition : " who will justify!' To warrant
him in doing so, it is not enough that he has asserted the
unity of God as an admitted supposition : " if indeed." He
must have laid it down as an indubitable fact which could
serve as a basis for argument. We must therefore prefer the
reading of the other two families : eVetTrep, seeing that.
Monotheism has as its natural corollary the expectation of
one only means of justification for the whole human race.
No doubt this dogma is compatible with a temporary par-
ticularism, of a pedagogic nature ; but as soon as the decisive
question arises, that of final salvation or condenmation, the
unity must appear. A dualism on this point would imply a
duality in God's essence : " who (in consequence of His unity)
will justify." The future : ivill justify, has been variously
explained. Some think that it expresses logical consequence
(Rlick. Hofm.) ; others, that it refers to the day of judgment

CHAP. III. 29, 30. 279

(Beza, Fritzs.) ; a third party refer it to all the particular cases
of justification which have taken or shall take place in
history. The last sense seems the most natural : the whole
new development of history, which is now opening, appears
to the apostle as the consequence of the fundamental dogma
of Judaism. — Meyer alleges that the difference of the two
prepositions e/c and hid, from and hy (which we have sought
to render in our translation), is purely accidental. Is it also
accidental that the article t?}?, the, which was wanting in the
first proposition before the word irlaTeeof;, faith, is added in the
second ? Experience has convinced us that Paul's style is not
at the mercy of chance, even in its most secondary elements.
On the other hand, must we, with Calvin, find the difference
a pure irony : " If any one insists on a difference between
Jews and Gentiles, well and good ! I shall make over one to
him ; the first obtains righteousness from faith, the second hy
faith." No ; it would be much better to abandon the attempt
to give a meaning to this sHght difference, than to make the
apostle a poor wit. The following, as it seems to me, is the
shade of meaning which the apostle meant to express. With
regard to the Jew, who laid claim to a righteousness of works,
he contrasts category with category by using the preposition
ix, from, out of, which denotes origin and nature: a right-
eousness of faith. Hence, too, he omits the article, which
would have described the concrete fact, rather than the
quality. But when he comes to speak of the Gentiles, who
had been destitute till then of every means of reaching any
righteousness whatever, he chooses the preposition hid, hy : hy
means of, which points to faith simply as the way by which
they reach the unexpected end; and he adds the article
because faith presents itself to his mind, in this relation, as
the well-known means, besides which the Gentile does not
dream of any other.

The harmony between the Mosaic law and justification by
faith has been demonstrated from two points of view — 1.
That of the icniversal humiliation (the exclusion of all boast-
ing), which results from the former and constitutes the basis
of the latter (vv. 27, 28). 2. That of the unity of God,
which is the basis of Israelitish Mosaism and prophetism,
as well as that of evangelical universalism (vv. 29, 30).

280 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITIL

Thereafter nothing more natural than the conclusion drawn
in ver. 31.

Ver. 31. "Do we then malce, void the law through faith t
TJiat he far from us ! Yea, we establish ^ the laior — This verse
has been misunderstood by most commentators. Some (Aug.,
Luth., Mel., Calv., Philip., Eiick.) apply it to the sanctification
which springs from faith, and by which the gospel finally
realizes the fulfilment of the law. This is the thesis which
will be developed in chaps, vi.-viii. We do not deny that
the apostle might defer the fuU development of a maxim
thrown out beforehand, and, as it were, by the way ; comp.
the sayings, iii. 3 and 20&. But yet he must have been
logically led to such sentences by their necessary connection
with the context. Now this is not the case here. What is
there at this point to lead the apostle to concern himself with
the sanctifying power of faith ? Let us remark, further, that
ver. 31 is connected by then with what precedes, and can only
express an inference from the passage, vv. 27—30. Finally,
how are we to explain the then at the beginning of chap. iv. ?
How does the mode of Abraham's justification follow from
the idea that faith leads to the fulfilment of the law ? Hof-
mann offers substantially the same explanation, only giving
to the word law the meaning of moral law in general (instead
of the Mosaic law). But the difficulties remain absolutely
the same. — Meyer and some others regard ver. 31 as the
beginning, and, in a manner, the theme of the following
chapter. The term law, on this view, refers to the passage of
Genesis which the apostle is about to quote, iv. 3 : " The
harmony of justification by faith with the law is about to be
explained by what the law says of Abraham's justification."
But it is diflicult to believe that Paul, without the slightest
indication, would call an isolated passage of the Pentateuch
tlw law. Then, if the relation between ver. 31 and iv. 1
were as Meyer thinks, it should be expressed logically by for,
not by then. Holsten, if we understand him rightly, tries to
get rid of these difficulties by applying the term law in oui
verse to the law of faith (ver. 27), in which he sees an abso-
lute rule of righteousness holding good for all men, and con-
sequently for Abraham. One could not imagine a mora

* T. R., with E K L P : /o-ra/^.y ; X a B C D <<rT«»a(t66».

CHAP. III. 31. 281

forced interpretation. Our explanation is already indicated ;
it follows naturally from the interpretation which we have
given of the preceding verses. Paul's gospel was accused of
making void the law by setting aside legal works as a means
of justification , and he has just proved to his adversaries
that it is his teaching, on the contrary, which harmonizes
with the true meaning of the law, while the opposite teaching
overturns it, by keeping up the vainglory of man, which the
law was meant to destroy, and by violating Monotheism on
which it is based. Is it surprising that he concludes such
a demonstration with the triumphant affirmation : " Do we
then overturn the law, as we are accused of doins: ? On the
contrary, we establish it." The true reading is probably
lardvofiev; the most ancient form, which has been replaced
by the later form laroofiev. The verb signifies, not to preserve,
maintain, but to cause to stand, to establish. This is what
Paul does with regard to the law ; he establishes it as it were
anew by the righteousness of faith ; which, instead of over-
turning it, as it was accused of doing, faithfully maintains its
spirit in the new dispensation, the fact which he had just
proved.

Tliis verse forms a true period to the whole passage, vv.
21-30. The law had been called to give witness on the
subject of the doctrine of universal condemnation ; it had
borne witness, vv. 7-19. It has just been cited again, and
now in favour of the new righteousness ; its testimony has
not been less favourable, vv. 27—31.

After demonstrating in a general way the harmony of his
teaching with Old Testament revelation, the apostle had only
one thing left to desire in the discussion : that was to succeed
in finding in the Old Testament itself a saying or an illus-
trious example which, in the estimation of the Jews, would
give the sanction of divine authority to his argument. There
loas such a saying, and he was fortunate enough to find
it. It was written by the hand of the legislator himself,
and related to what was in a mannjer the typical example of
justification with the Jews. It therefore combined all the
conditions fitted to settle the present question conclusively.
Thus it is that Geu. xv. 6 becomes the text of the admirable
development contained in chap. iv. This piece is the counter-

282 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

part of the scriptural demonstration which had closed the
delineation of universal condemnation, iii. 9-20. It belongs,
therefore, to the exposition of the thesis of ver. 21: the
righteousness of faith witnessed by the law and the prophets.

TENTH PASSAGE (IV. 1-25).
Faith the Principle of Abraham's Justification.

Abraham being for the Jews the embodiment of salvation,
his case was of capital moment in the solution of the question
here treated. This was a conviction which Paul shared with
his adversaries. Was the patriarch justified, by faith and
by faith alone, his thesis was proved. Was he justified by
some work of his own added to his faith, there was an end
of Paul's doctrine.

In the first part of this chapter, vv. 1-12, he proves that
Abraham owed his righteousness to his faith, and to his faith
alone. In the second, vv. 13-16, he supports his argument
by the fact that the inheritance of the world, promised to the
patriarch and his posterity, was conferred on him independently
of his observance of the law. The third part, vv. 17-22,
proves that that very posterity to whom this heritage was to
belong was a fruit of faith. In the fourth and last part,
vv. 23-25, this case is applied to believers of the present.
Thus righteousness, inheritance, posterity, everything, Abraham
received by faith ; and it will be even so with us, if we believe
like him.

1. Vv. 1-12.

Abraham was justified hy faith, vv. 1-8, and by faith alone,
w. 9-12.

Vv. 1, 2. " What shall loe say then that Abraham our first
father ^ has found ^ according to the flesh ? For if Abraham
were justified by works, he hath whereof to gloi^y ; but not before
God!' — The question with which this exposition opens is
connected with the preceding by then, because the negative

* fc? A B C read ^porarcpx, while T. R., with D E F G K L P It. reads: -rartpa.
fc< C D E F G It., Or. (Lat. trans.) place svp*ix.imi immediately after n ipov/nr.
while T. R. places it, with K L P. Syr. after ^anpa tifc„„ ; B omits it.

CHAP. IV. 1, 2. 283

answer anticipated is a logically necessary consequence of
the demonstration given iii. 27—31. The particular case of
Abraham is subordinate to the general principle which has
just been established. — It is not proper to divide this verse,
as some have done, into two questions : " What shall we say ?
That Abraha^m has found [something] according to the flesh ? "
For then it would be necessary to understand an object to the
verb has found, righteousness, for example, which is extremely
forced. Or it would be necessary to translate, with Hofmann :
" What shall we say ? That we have found Abraham as our
father according to the flesh ? " by understanding rjixa^, we, as
the subject of the infinitive verb to have found. But this
ellipsis of the subject is more forced still than that of the
object ; and what Christian of Gentile origin — for the expres-
sion have found could not be applied to the Judeo- Christians —
would have asked if he had become a child of Abraham in
the way of the flesh ? Ver. 1 therefore contains only one
question (see the translation). The apostle asks whether
Abraham by his own action found some advantage in the
matter of salvation. In the Eeceived reading, which rests on
the Byzs., the verb has found separates the words our father
from the others: according to the flesh, so that this latter clause
cannot apply to the substantive father, but necessarily qualifies
the verb has found. It is otherwise in the Alex, and Greco-
Latin readings, where the verb has found immediately follows
the words : What shall we say ? whereby the words our father
and according to the flesh are found in juxtaposition, which
might easily lead the reader to take the two terms as forming
a single description : our father according to the flesh. But
this meaning cannot be the true one ; for the matter in
question here is not yet the nature of Abraham's paternity,
which is reserved to a later point, but the manner in which
Abraham became righteous (vv. 2, 3). The reading was
probably falsified by the recollection of the frequent phrases :
father or child according to the flesh. — The flesh denotes here
human activity in its state of isolation from the influence of
God, and consequently in its natural helplessness so far as
justification and salvation are concerned. The meaning is
therefore : " What has Abraham found hy his own labour ? "
The word flesh is probably chosen in reference to circumcision

284 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

which became the distinctive seal of the elect family. — The
term irpoirdTcop, first father, which occurs here in the Alex,
instead of the simple Trarrjp (in the two other families), is
strange to the language of the New Testament and of the
LXX. ; but this very circumstance speaks in favour of its
authenticity. For the copyists would not have substituted so
exceptional a term for the usual word. Paul probably used
it to bring out the proto-typical character of everything which
transpired in Abraham's person. — Does the pronoun our imply,
as is alleged by Baur, Volkmar, etc., the Jewish origin of the
Christians of Eome ? Yes, if the translation were : our father
according to the flesh. But we have seen that this interpreta-
tion is false. It is not even right to say, with Meyer (who
holds the Gentile origin of the church of Eome), that the
pronoun our refers to the Judeo-Christian minority of that
church. For the meaning of this pronoun is determined by
the we, which is the subject of all the preceding verbs (riialu
void, establish, shall say) ; now, this refers to Christians in
general. Is not the whole immediately following chapter
intended to prove that Abraham is the father of believing
Gentiles as well as of believing Jews (comp. the categorical
declarations of vv. 12 and 16) ? How, then, should the word
our in this verse, which is as it were the theme of the whole
chapter, be used in a sense directly opposed to the essential
idea of the entire piece ? Comp., besides, the use of the
expression our fathers in 1 Cor. x. 1. What is the under-
stood reply which Paul expected to his question ? Is it, as is
often assumed : nothing at all ? Perhaps he did not go so far.
He meant rather to say (comp. ver. 2) : nothing, so far as
justification before God is concerned; which did not exclude
the idea of the patriarch having from a human point of view
found certain advantages, such as riches, reputation, etc.

Ver. 2. Some commentators take this verse as the logical
proof (for) of the negative answer which must be understood
between vv. 1 and 2 : "Nothing ; for, if he had been justified
by his works, he would have whereof to glory, which is inad-
missible." But why would it be inadmissible ? This is
exactly the matter to be examined. The reasoning would
then be only a vicious circle. The verse must be regarded,
not as a proof of the negative answer anticipated, but as the

CHAP. IV. 1,2. 285

explanation why Paul required to put the question of ver. 1 ;
"I ask this, because if Abraham had been justified by his
works, he would really have something of which to glory ; and
consequently the boasting which I declared to be excluded
(iii 27) would reappear once more as right and good." Did
not Abraham's example form the rule ? — The expression hy
works is substituted for that of ver. 1 : according to the flesh,
lis the term heing justified replaces the having found. In both
cases, the term appearing in ver. 2 indicates the concrete
result (works, heing justified), as that in ver. 1 expressed the
abstract principle (the flesh, finding). The word /cav'^rjf^a
signifies a matter for glorying in, which is quite a different
thing from kuv^wi^, the act of glorying. Paul does not say
that Abraham would really glory, but only that he would have
matter for doing so. But how can the apostle express himself
at the end of the verse in the words : but not before God, so as
to make us suppose that Abraham was really justified by his
works, though not before God ? Some commentators (Beza,
Grot., de Wette, Ptuck., Philip.) think themselves obliged to
weaken the sense of the wovd justified, as if it denoted here
j ustification in the eyes of men : " If Abraham was j ustified
by his works (in the judgment of men), he has a right to
boast (relatively to them and himself), but not as before God."
But would such an attenuated sense of the word justify be
possible in this passage, which may be called Paul's classical
teaching on the subject of justification ? Calvin, Fritzsche,
Baur, Hodge, assert that we have here an incomplete syllogism ;
the major : " If Abraham was justified by works, he has
whereof to glory;" the minor: "Now he could not have
whereof to glory before God ; " the conclusion (understood) :
" Therefore he was not justified by works." But the minor is
exactly what it would have been necessary to prove ; for what
had been said, ver. 27, of the exclusion of boasting or of justifi-
cation by works, was again made a question by the discussion
on the case of Abraham. Besides, the conclusion was the
important part, and could not have been left to be understood.
The apostle has not accustomed us to such a mode of arguing.
Meyer, after some variations in his first editions, has ended by
siding with the explanation of Chrysostom and Theodoret,
which is to the following effect : " If Abraham was justified

286 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH

by his works, he has undoubtedly something whereof to glory
in his own eyes ; but in this case he has received no favour
from God, nothing which honours him as the object of divine
grace; and his justification not coming from God, he has no
cause to glory in relation to God." This meaning is very
ingenious; nevertheless it is untenable; fo» — 1. The term
glorying would require to be taken in a good sense : glorying
in a real favour received from God, while throughout the
whole piece it is applied to an impure boasting, the ground
Df which man finds in himself and in his own work.

2. Paul must have said in this sense : iv Oetp, in God, rather
than 7r/oo9 tov Qeov, before (in relation to) God, comp. ii 17.

3. Ver. 3 does not naturally connect itself with ver. 2 when
thus understood, for this verse proves not what it should (for)^
to wit, that Abraham has no cause for boasting in the case
supposed, but the simple truth that he was justified by his
faith. Semler and Glockler have had recourse to a desperate
expedient, that of taking Tr/ao? tov Geov as the exclamation of
an oath : " But no, by God, it is not so." But this sense would
have required tt^o? tov Qeov ; and what could have led Paul
to use such a form here ? The turn of expression employed
by the apostle is certainly singular, we shall say even a little
perplexed. He feels he is approaching a delicate subject,
about which Jewish national feelini; could not but show
itself very sensitive. To understand his meaning, we must,
after the words : " If he was justified by works, he .hath
whereof to glory," add the following : " and he has really great
reason for glorying ; it is something to have been made an
Abraham ; one may be proud of having borne such a name,
but" . . . Here the apostle resumes in such a way as to return
to his theme : " but all this glorying has nothing to do with
the account which he had to render to God." The words : in
relation to God, irpo^ tov Qeov, are evidently opposed to a
corresponding : . in relation to man, understood. In comparing
himself with men less holy than he, Abraham might have
some cause for glorying ; but the instant he put himself before
God, his righteousness vanished. This is exactly the point
proved by the following verses.

Vv. 3—5. "For what saith the Scripture? Now Abraham
believed God, and it ivas counted unto him for righteousness.

CHAP. IV. 3-6. 287

iVW to him that worheih is the reward not reckoned of grace^
hut of deli. But to him that worketh not, hut helievcth on Him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness^
— By the words of ver. 2 : " But it is not so in relation to
God!' the apostle gave it to be understood that he knew the
judgment of God Himself on Abraham's works. Ver. 3 ex-
plains how he can pronounce regarding a fact which seems to
lie beyond tlie reach of human knowledge. Scripture contains
a declaration in which there is revealed the judgment of God
respecting the way in which Abraham was justified. This
saying is to be found in Gen. xv. 6. Called by God out of
his tent by night, he is invited to contemplate the heavens,
and to count, if he can, the myriads of stars ; then he hears
the promise : " so numerous shall thy seed be." He is a
centenarian, and has never had children. But it is God who
speaks ; that is enough for him : he believed God. Faith con-
sists in holding the divine promise for the reality itself; and
then it happens that what the believer has done in regard to
th3 promise of God, God in turn does in regard to his faith :
He holds it for righteousness itself. — The particle Be, now,
takes the place of the Kal, and^ which is found in the LXX.,
though their reading is not quite certain, as the Sinait. and
the Vatic, have a blank here. It is possible, therefore, that, as
Tischendorf thinks, the generally received reading in Paul's time
was Se, now, and not KaL For it is evident that if the apostle
preserves this particle, which is not demanded by the meaning
of his own text, it is to establish the literal character of the
quotation. It is not said : he believed the promise of God,
but: God. The object of his faith, when he embraced the
promise, was God Himself — His truth, His faithfulness. His
holiness, His goodness, His wisdom, His power. His eternity.
For God was wholly in the promise proceeding from Him. It
little matters, indeed, what the particular object is to which
the divine revelation refers at a given moment. All the parts
of tliis revelation form but one whole. In laying hold of one
promise, Abraham laid hold of all by anticipation ; for he
laid hold of the God of the promises, and henceforth he was
in possession even of those which could only be revealed and
realized in the most distant future. — The Hebrew says : " and
God counted it to him for righteousness." Tlje LXX. have trans-

288 JTJSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

lated by the passive : and it was counted to Jdm; Paul follo\vs
them in quoting. The verb Xoyl^ecv, Xoyi^eaOat, signifies : to
put to account; comp. 2 Sam. xix. 19 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 16 ; and Philem. ver. 18 (where Paul uses the analogous
term iWoryeLv, because he is speaking of an account properly
so called : " If he has done thee any wrong, put it to my
account"). It is possible to put to one's account what he
possesses or what he does not possess. In the first case it is
a simple act of justice ; in the second, it is a matter of grace.
The latter is Abraham's case, since God reckons his faith to
Mm for what it is not : for righteousness. This word righteous-
ness here denotes perfect obedience to the will of God, in virtue
of which Abraham would necessarily have been declared
righteous by God as heing so, if he had possessed it. As he
did not possess it, God put his faith to his account as an
equivalent. Why so ? On what did this incomparable value
which God attached to his faith rest ? We need not answer :
on the moral power of this faith itself. For faith is a simple
receptivity, and it would be strange to fall back on the spliere
of meritorious work when explaining the very word which
ought to exclude all merit. The infinite worth of faith lies in
its object, God and His manifestation. This object is moral
perfection itself. To believe is therefore to lay hold of per-
fection at a stroke. It is not surprising that laying hold of
perfection, it should be reckoned by God as righteousness. It
has been happily said : Faith is at once the most moral and
the most fortunate of strokes (coups de main). In vv. 4 and 5,
the apostle analyzes the saying quoted. This analysis proves
that Abraham was justified not in the way of a man who had
done works (ver. 4), but in the way of a man who has not
done them (ver. 5) ; which demonstrates the truth of the affir-
mation of ver. 2 : " but it is not so before God." — The two
expressions : o iprya^6fjL6vo<i, him that worketh, and o jxt] ipya^o-
fievo^, him that worketh not, are general and absti'act, with this
difference, that the first refers to any workman whatever in
the domain of ordinary life, while the second applies only to a
workman in the moral sense. To the hired workman who
performs his task, his reward is reckoned not as a favour,
but as a debt. Now, according to the declaration of Moses,
Abraham was not treated on this footing ; therefore he is not

CHAP. IV. 6-8. 289

one of those who have fulfilled their task. On the other hand,
to the workman (in the moral sense) who does not labour
satisfactorily, and who nevertheless places his confidence in
God who pardons, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.
Now, according to Moses, it is on this footing that Abraham
was treated ; therefore he belongs to those who have not ful-
filled their task. These two harmonious conclusions — the one
understood after ver. 4, the other after ver. 5 — set forth the
contents of the declaration of Moses : Abraham was treated on
the footing not of a good, but of a bad workman. — The sub-
jective negation /jltj before ipya^ofievofi is the expression of the
logical relation : because, between the participle and the principal
verb : " because he does not do his work, his faith is reckoned
to him as work." — Paul says : He who justifieth the ungodly.
He might have said the sinner; but he chooses the more
forcible term to designate the evil of sin, that no category of
sinners, even the most criminal, may think itself excluded
from the privilege of being justified by their faith. It has some-
times been supposed that by the word ungodly Paul meant to
characterize Abraham himself, in the sense in which it is said
(Josh. xxiv. 2) that " Terah, the father of Abraham, while he
dwelt beyond the flood, had served other gods" But idolatry
is not exactly equivalent to ungodliness (impiety), and Paul
would certainly never have called Abraham ungodly (impious).
— To impute to the believer righteousness which he does not
possess, is at the same time not to impute to him sins of
which he is guilty. Paul feels the need of completing on this
negative side his exposition of the subject of justification.
And hence, no doubt, the reason why, to the saying of Moses
regarding Abraham, he adds one of David's, in which justifica-
tion is specially celebrated in the form of the non-imputation
of sin.

Vv. 6—8. "Even as^ David also describeth the blessedness of
the man, unto whom God imjputeth righteousness without works:
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
covered. Blessed is the man to whom'^ the Lord does not impute
sin." — It need not be supposed that David here plays the part
of a second example, side by side with Abraham. The position

* Instead of »ot,6a.Tip, D E If G read xotSui^

* Instead of «., K B D E G read cu.

GODET. T KOM. I.

290 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

of the patriarch is unique, and Paul will return to it after this
short interruption. He merely adduces a saying of David, the
inspired singer, which seems to him to complete the testimony
of Moses about Abraham. — The conjunction of comparison
KaOdirep is more forcible than Ka6(o<; ; it indicates an intrinsic
and striking agreement : eomctly as. — The word fiaKapicr/juo^,
which we have translated by blessedness, strictly signifies : the
celebration of blessedness. The verb Xeyet, says, of which this
word is the object, signifies here : he tetters (this beatification).
The following words are, as it were, the joyful hymn of the
justified sinner. This passage is the beginning of Ps. xxxii.,
which David probably composed after having obtained pardon
from God for the odious crimes into which passion had dragged
him. Hence the expressions : transgressions pardoned, sins
covered, sin not imputed. Here, then, is the negative side of
justification, the evil which it removes ; while in regard to
Abraham it was only the positive side which was under treat-
ment, the blessing it confers. Thus it is that the two passages
complete one another.

This observation made, the apostle returns to his subject.
It was not enough to prove that Abraham owed his justifica-
tion to his faith. Por the defenders of works might say :
True ; but it was as one circumcised that Abraham obtained
this privilege of being justified by his faith. And so we have
works driven out by the door, and returning by the window.
The answer to the question of ver. 1 : " What hath Abraham
found by the way of the flesh ? " would no more be : nothing,
but : everything. For if it was to his circumcision Abraham
owed the favour whereby God had reckoned his faith to him
for righteousness, everything depended in the end on this
material rite : and those who were destitute of it were ipso
facto excluded from justification by faith. The nullity of this
whole point of view is what Paul shows in the following
passage, where he proves that the patriarch was not only
justified by faith, but by faith only.

Vv. 9, 10. "Is this beatification then for the circumcision, or

for the uncircumcision also ? for we suy : ^ Faith was reckoned to

Abraham for righteousness, Eovj was it then reckoned ? when

he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in cir'

* K B D omit the er/, which T. R. reads with all the o<^her documents.

CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 291

cumcision, hut in uncircumcision" — The then serves merely to
resume the discussion : " I ask then if this celebration of the
blessedness of the justified applies only to the circumcised, or
also to the uncircumcised." On this everything really de-
pended. For, on the first alternative, the Gentiles had no
way left of admission to the privilege of justification by faith
except that of becoming Jews ; and there was an end of Paul's
gospel. M. Eeuss regards all this as an example " of the
scholasticism of the Jewish schools of the day," and of a
"theological science" which could supply the apostle only
with "extremely doubtful modes of argument." We shall
see if it is really so. — The second part of the verse : for we say
... is intended to bring back the mind of the reader from
David to Abraham : " For, in fine, w^e were affirming that
Abraham was justified by faith. How is it then with this
personage, whose example forms the rule ? How was he
justified by faith? as uncircumcised or as circumcised?"
Such is the very simple meaning of ver. 10. The then which
connects it with ver. 9 is thus explained : " To answer the
question which I have just put (9a), let us then examine how
the justification of Abraham took place." — The answer was
not difficult ; it was furnished by Genesis, and it was peremp-
tory. It is in chap. xv. that we find Abraham justified by
faith ; and it is in chap, xvii., about fourteen years after, that
he receives the ordinance of circumcision. The apostle can
therefore answer with assurance : " not as circumcised, but as
uncu'cumcised." There was a time in Abraham's life when
by his uncircumcision he represented the Gentiles, as later
after his circumcision he became the representative of Israel.
Now, it was in the first of these two periods of his life, that
is to say, in his Gentilehood, that he was justified by faith
... the conclusion was obvious at a glance. Paul makes
full use of it against his adversaries. He expounds it with
decisive consequences in the sequel.

Vv. 11, 12. ''And he received the sign of circumcision,^ a
seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being
uncircumcised : that he might he at once the father of all them
that helieve, that righteousness may he imputed unto them also ;
and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the
^ Instead of -xifiroufis, A D, Syr. read tifirofin^.

292 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

circumcision only, hut who also walk in the steps of that faith
of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised"
— Kal, and, signifies here : " and in consequence of tlie justi-
fication thus found." — n€piT0fjL7]<;, of circumcision, may be made
a genitive of apposition : " the sign which is circumcision," or
a genitive of quality : " a sign in the form of circumcision."
The former is the simpler sense. In any case, the reading
TrepLTOfi'ijv in two Mjj. is a correction. Circumcision appears
even in Gen. xvii. 11 as the sign of the covenant between
God and His people. The Eabbins express themselves thus :
" God put the sign of love in the flesh." The term a-rjfjbelov,
sign, relates to the material thing ; the term o-^pa^yiq, seal, to
its religious import. Tar, then, from circumcision having been
the antecedent condition of Abraham's justification, it was
the mark, and consequently the effect of it. — The article t^9
(after the words righteousness of faith), which we have trans-
lated by : vjhich he had, may relate to the entire phrase
righteousness of faith, or to the word faith taken by itself If
we consider the following expression : " father of all believers "
(not of all the justified), and especially the end of ver. 12,
we cannot doubt that the article applies to the word faith
/aken alone : " the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised."
The in order that which follows should not be taken in the
weakened sense of so that. No doubt Abraham in believing
did not set before himself the end of becoming the spiritual
father of Gentile believers. But the matter in question here
is the intention of God who directed things with this view
which was His from the beginning of the history. The real
purpose of God extended to the Gentiles ; the theocracy was
only a means in His mind. Had He not said to Abraham,
when calling him, that " in him should all the families of the
earth be blessed"? Gen. xii. 3. — On the meaning of hid, in
the state of, see on ii. 27. — The last words: that righteousness
might be imputed unto them, should not be regarded as a new
end of the: he received the sign, to be added to the first
already mentioned (that he might be the father . . .)• The
verb is too remote ; we must therefore make the that ... de-
pend on the participle iriarevovTcov, them that believe (though
they be not circumcised) ; not certainly in Hofmann's sense ;
" who have faith in the fact that it will be imputed to them,"

CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 293

but in the only grammatically admissible sense : " them who
believe in order that righteousness may be imputed to them."
There l3 a desire in faith. It seeks reconciliation with God,
and consequently justification. — The pronoun avrov, he (" that
he might be, even he "), is intended to bring the person of
Abraham strongly into relief, as called to fill, he, this one
solitary man, the double place of father of believing Gentiles
(ver. 11) and of believing Jews (ver. 12). It is very remark-
able that the apostle here puts the believers of Gentile origin
first among the members of Abraham's posterity. But was
it not they in fact who were in the condition most similar to
that of the patriarch at the time when he obtained his justi-
fication by faith ? If, then, a preference was to be given to
the one over the other, it was certainly due to them rather
than to circumcised Christians. What a complete reversal of
Jewish notions !

Ver. 12. There can be no doubt that this verse refers to
believers of Jewish origin, who formed the other half of
Abraham's spiritual family. But it presents a great gram-
matical difficulty. The Greek expression is such that it seems
as if Paul meant to speak in this same verse of two different
classes of individuals. It appears as if the literal translation
should run thus : " father of circumcision, in respect of those
who are not only of the circumcision, hut also in respect of
those who walk in the steps of " . . . Proceeding on this
translation, Theodoret, Luther, and others have applied the
first words : " in respect of those who are not only of the
circumcision," to Jewish believers, and the following words :
" in respect of those who walk in the footsteps of Abraham's
faith," to Gentile believers. But why then return to the latter,
who had already been sufficiently designated and characterized
in ver. 11? And how, in speaking of Jewish believers, could
Paul content himself with saying that they are not of cir-
cumcision only, without expressly mentioning faith as the
condition of their being children of Abraham ? Finally, the
construction would still be incorrect in this sense, which would
have demanded oi to?9 . . . fiovov (not only for those who
"belong to the circumcision) instead of Toh ov . . . /novov (for
those who not only belong to , . .). This ancient explanation
must therefore certainly be abandoned. There can be here

294 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

only one class of persons designated by two distinct attributes.
The first is circumcision, and the second, a faith like Abraham's.
But in this case the Greek construction seems again faulty
in the second member. This is acknowledged by Tholuck,
Meyer, etc. Philippi is fain to satisfy himself with the reflec-
tion that negligences of style are found in the best writers ;
which is true, but does not help us here ; for the faultiness
would be a real want of logic. On the other hand, the ex-
pedients recently devised by Hofmann and Wieseler are so far-
fetched that they do not deserve even to be discussed. And
yet the apostle has not accustomed us to inexactness unworthy
even of an intelligent pupil ; and we may still seek to solve
the difficulty. This is not impossible, as it appears to us ;
we need only take the first rot? to be a pronoun {those wJio),
as it incontestably is, but regard the second not as a second
parallel pronoun (which would, besides, require it to be placed
before the kul), but a simple definite article : " the (individuals)
walking in the steps of " . . . The meaning thus reached is to
this effect : " those w^lio are not only of the circumcision, but
who are also, that is to say, at the same time, the (individuals)
walking in the steps of " . . . This article, toU, the, is parti-
tive ; it serves to mark off clearly within the mass of the
Jewish people who possess the sign of circumcision, a much
narrower circle : those walking in the faith, that is to say,
the Jews, who to circumcision add the characteristic of faith.
These latter do not form a second class alongside of the first ;
they form within this latter a group apart, possessing beside
the common distinction, an attribute (faith) which is wanting
to the others; and it is to draw this line of demarcation
accurately within the circumcised Israel that the article is
used. The to?9 is here simply an article analogous to the
Tot9 before Tno-revovo-iv.

Paul is not satisfied with saying : " who also walk in the
footsteps of Abraham's faith ; " he expressly reminds ns — for
this is the point of his argument — that Abraham had this
faith in the state of uncircumcision. What does this mean, if
not that Abraham was still ranked as a Gentile when " he
believed and his faith was counted to him for righteousness " ?

^ The complete Greek phrase would be as follows : ol oi* Ik ^zpiTofA^s (U«mi

CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 295

Hence it follows that it is not, properly speaking, for Gentile
believers to enter by the gate of the Jews, but for Jewish
believers to enter by the gate of the Gentiles. It will be
allowed that it was impossible for one to overwhelm his
adversary more completely. But such is Paul's logic; it
does not stop short with refuting its opponent, it does not
leave him till it has made it plain to a demonstration that
the truth is the very antipodes of what he affirmed.

We find in these two verses the great and sublime idea
of Abraham's spiritual family, that people which is the pro-
duct, not of the flesh, but of faith, and which comprises the
believers of the whole world, whether Jews or Gentiles. This
place of father to all the believing race of man assigned to
Abraham, is a fundamental fact in the kingdom of God ; it is
the act in which this kingdom takes its rise, it is the aim of
the patriarch's call : " that he might he the father of . . . (ver.
11), and of" . . . (ver. 12). Hofmann says rightly: "Abraham
is not only the first example of faith, for there had been other
believers before him (Heb. xi.) ; but in him there was founded
for ever the community of faith." From this point the con-
tinuous history of salvation begins. Abraham is the stem of
that tree, which thenceforth strikes root and developes. For
he has not believed simply in the God of creation ; he has
laid hold by faith of the God of the promise, the author
of that redeeming work which appears on the earth in his
very faith. The notion of this spiritual paternity once
rightly understood, the filiation of Abraham in the physical
sense lost all importance in the matter of salvation. The
prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus (John viii.), were already at
one in laying down the truth which the apostle here demon-
strates : faith as constituting the principle of life, as it were
the life-blood of Abraham's family, which is that of God on
the earth. Because, indeed, this principle is the only one
in harmony with the moral essence of things, with the true
relation between the Creator who gives of free grace, and the
creature who accepts freely. — And this whole admirable
deduction made by the apostle is to be regarded as a piece
of Eabbinical scholasticism !

The apostle has succeeded in discovering the basis of
Christian universalism in the very life of him in whose

296 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

person theocratic particularism was founded. He has demon-
strated the existence of a time when he represented Gentilism,
or, to speak more properly, mankind in general ; and it was
during this period, when he was not yet a Jew, but simply
a man, that he received salvation ! The whole gospel of Paul
was involved in this fact. But a question arose : after re-
ceiving justification, Abraham had obtained anotlier privilege ;
he had been declared, with all his posterity, to be the future
possessor of the world. Now this posterity could be none else
than his issue by Isaac, and which had been put in posses-
sion of circumcision and of Canaan. Through this opening
there returned, with banners displayed, that particularism
which had been overthrown in the domain of justification.
Thus there was lost the whole gain of the preceding demon-
stration. Paul does not fail to anticipate and remove the
difficulty. To this question he devotes the following passage,
vv. 13-16.

2. Vv. 13-16.

Vv. 13, 14. "For the promise, tlmt he should he the heir of
the ^ world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through tlie law,
hit through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of
the law he heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of
none effects — The /or bears on the understood objection whij^h
we have just explained : " For it need not be imagined that
the promised inheritance is to be obtained by means of the
law, and that the people of the law are consequently assured
of it." Paul knew that this thought lay deep in the heart of
every Jew. He attacks it unsparingly, demonstrating that
the very opposite is the truth ; for the law, far from procuring
the promised inheritance for the Jews, would infallibly deprive
them of it. — The possession of the world, of which the apostle
speaks, had been promised to Abraham and his posterity in
three forms. — 1. In the promise made to the patriarch of
the land of Canaan. For, from the prophetic and Messianic
point of view, which dominated the history of the patriarchal
family from the beginning, the land of Canaan was the emblem
of the sanctified earth ; it was the point of departure for the
glorious realization of the latter. In this sense it is said in

* T. R., with, K L P, reads t#i/ before Koirftou; omitted by all the others.

CHAP. IV. 13, 14. 297

the Tanchuma : ' " God gave our father Abraham possession
of the heavens and ca.rth." 2. Several promises of another
kind naturally led to the extension of the possession of the
promised land to that of the whole world ; for example, the
three following, Gen. xii. 3 : "In thee shall all families of the
earth be blessed ; " xxii. 17:" Thy seed shall possess the gate
of his enemies ; " ver. 18: "In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed." The two expressions : in thee, and
in thy seed, alternate in these promises. But they are com-
bined, as in our passage, in the verses, xxvl 3, 4, where we
also again find the two ideas of the possession of Canaan, and
the blessing of the whole world through Israel. 3. Above aU
these particular promises there ever rested the general promise
of the Messianic kingdom, the announcement of that descen-
dant of David to whom God had said : " I have given thee
the uttermost parts of the earth for an inheritance " (Ps. ii.
8). Now Israel was inseparable from its Messiah, and such
an explanation led men to give to the preceding promises the
widest and most elevated sense possible. Israel had not been
slow to follow this direction ; but its carnal spirit had given
to the universal supremacy which it expected, a yet more
political than religious complexion. Jesus, on the contrary,
in His Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, had translated
this idea of dominion over the world into that of the humble
love which rules by serving: "Blessed are the meek; for they
shall inherit the earth." The apostle does not here enter on
the question of how the promise is to be fulfilled ; he deals
only with the condition on which it is to be enjoyed. Is the
law or faith the way of entering into the possession of this
divine inheritance, and consequently are the people of law or
of faith the heirs ? — The word inheritance, to express owner-
ship, reproduces the Hebrew name Nachala, wliich was used
to designate the land of Canaan. This country was regarded
as a heritage which Israel, Jehovah's first-born son, had re-
ceived from his heavenly Father.

To prove that the inheriting seed is not Israel, but the

nation of believers, Jews or Gentiles, Paul does not use, as

Meyer, Hodge, and others suppose, the same argument as he

follows in Gal. iii. 15 et seq. He does not argue here from

* CommeMary on the Pentateuch, probably of the ninth century.

298 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

the fact that the law was given subsequently to the patri-
archal covenant, and could make no change in that older
contract, which was founded solely on the promise on the
one hand, and faith on the other. The demonstration in our
passage has not this historical character ; it is, if one may so
speak, dogmatic in its nature. Its meaning is to this effect :
If the possession of the world were to be the reward of
observing the law, the promise would thereby be reduced to
a nullity. This declaration is enunciated ver. 14, and proved
ver. 15. The inference is drawn ver. 16.

Ver. 14. If, in order to be heir of the world, it is absolutely
necessary to come under the jurisdiction of the law, and con-
sequently to be its faithful obsen^er, — otherwise what purpose
would it serve ? — it is all over at a stroke both with faith and
with the promise : with faith, that is to say, with the hope of
that final heritage, since the realization of that expectation
would be bound to a condition which sinful man could not
execute, the fulfilment of the law, and since faith would thus
be deprived of its object (literally, emptied, KeKevcoTat, from
/C6I/09, empty) ; and next, with the promise itself : for, an im-
possible condition being attached to it, it would thereby be
paralysed in its effects (^KaT7]py7jTaL). Proof and conclusion,
vv. 15, 16.

Vv. 15, 16. "For the law worketh wrath: and, indeed}
where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of
faith, that it might he hy grace ; to the end the promise might he
sure to all the seed ; not to that only lohich is of the law, hut to
that also which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is the father
of us alir — Faith deprived of its object, the promise made
void for those who are under the law, why all this ? Simply
because the law, when not fulfilled, brings on man God's
disapprobation, wrath, which renders it impossible on His part
to fulfil the promise. This passage, like so many others
already quoted, is incompatible with the idea which Pdtschl
forms of divine wrath. This critic, as we know (see on i. 18),
applies the term wrath, in the Old Testament only, to the
sudden punishment with death of exceptional malefactors,
who by their crime compromised the existence of the covenant

1 Instead of yuf, wliicli T. R. reads, with D E F G K L P, It. Syr., we read in
« ABC, Or. (Ut. trans.):?!.

CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 299

itself. But in these words the apostle evidently starts from
the idea that whatever is under the law is ipso facto the object
of wrath, which applies to the entire people, and not to a few
individuals only. Melanchthon applied the term wrath in
this verse to the irritation felt by condemned man against the
judgment of God. He forgot that the loss of the divine
inheritance results to the sinner, not from his own wrath, but
from that of the judge. — The article o, the, before the word
law, proves that the subject here is the law properly so called,
the Mosaic law. — It would be improper to translate : " for it
is the law which produces wrath," as if wrath could not exist
beyond the jurisdiction of the law. Chap. i. proves the
contrary. But the law produces it inevitably where it has
been given. The preponderance of egoism in the human
heart once granted, the barrier of the law is certain to be
overpassed, and transgression is sure to make wrath burst
forth.

T. K., with the Byzs., the Greco-Latins, and the oldest
versions, connects the second part of this verse with the first
by yap, for. This reading appears at the first glance easier
than that of the Alex. : Be (now, or htt). But this very
circumstance is not in its favour. The three yap, which have
preceded, may have also led the copyists to write the same
particle again. The context, carefully consulted, demands a
Be rather than a yap. For what says the second member?
That without a law transgression is not possible. Now this
idea does not logically prove that the law necessarily produces
wrath. This second proposition of ver. 15 is not therefore
a proof, but a simple observation in support of the first ; and
this connection is exactly marked by the Be, which is the
particle here not of opposition (hut), but of gradation (7ww),
and which may be rendered by and indeed. This second
proposition is therefore a sort of parenthesis intended to
strengthen the bearing of the fact indicated in the first (15a) :
" In general, a law cannot be the means fitted to gain for us
the favour of God ; on the contrary, the manifestations of sin,
of the evil nature, acquire a much graver character through
the law, that of transgression, of positive, deliberate violation
of the divine will, and so increase wrath." Uapd^aa-i^,
transgression, from irapa^alveiVt to overpass. A barrier cannot

300 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

be crossed except in so far as it exists. So without law there
is no sin in the form of transgression. — The article o is want-
ing here before v6fio<;, law. And rightly so ; for this saying
is a general maxim which does not apply specially to the
Jews and the Jewish law (as 15a). The Gentiles have also
a law (ii. 14, 15), which they can observe or violate. In the
latter case, they become objects of wrath (chap, i.) as well as
the Jews, tliough in a less degree.

Yer. 16. If, then, the promise of the inheritance was
serious, there was only one way to its fulfilment — that the
inheritance should be given by the way of faith and not of
law. This consequence is expounded in ver. 16, which
developes the last words of ver. 13: hy the righteousness of
faith, as ver. 15 had developed the first : not hy the law. —
Therefore : because of that condemning effect which attaches
to the law. The verb and subject to be understood in this
elliptical proposition might be : the promise was made. But
the words following : that it might be hy grace, do not allow
this; the subject in question is evidently the fulfilment.
What we must supply, therefore, is : the promise will be fid-
filled, or : the heritage will be given. The inheritance, from the
moment of its being granted to faith only, remains a gift of
pure grace ; and while remaining a gift of grace, it is possible
for it not to be withdrawn, as it must have been if its
acquisition had been attached to the fulfilment of the law.
It is very important not to efface the notion of aim contained
in the words el^ to elvac (that the promise might be), by trans-
lating, as Oltramare does, so that. There was positive inten-
tion on God's part, when He made the gift of inheritance
depend solely on faith. For He knew well that this was the
only way to render the promise sure (the opposite of being
made void, ver. 14). And sure for whom ? For all the seed
of Abraham, in the true and full sense of the word ; it was
the fulfilment of those terms of the promise : " to thee and
to thy seed.'' After what precedes, this term can only desig-
nate the patriarch's spiritual family, — all believers, Jew or
Gentile. Faith being the sole condition of promise, ought
also to be the sole characteristic of those in whom it will be
realized. These words : sure for all the seed, are developed in
what follows. The apostle embraces each of the two classes

CHAP. IV. 15, 16. 301

of believers contained in this general term : " sure," says he,
"not only to tTiat which is of the law" believers of Jewish
origin who would lose the inheritance if it was attached to
the law, " but also to that which is of faith" Christians of
Gentile origin to whom the promise would cease to be acces-
sible the instant it was made to depend on any other character
than that of faith. It is plain that the expression used here
has a wholly different meaning from the apparently similar
form employed in ver. 12. There are two classes of persons
here, and not tivo attributes of the same persons. The second
tS is a pronoun as well as the first. It may be objected,
indeed, that in designating the first of these two classes Paul
does not mention the characteristic of faith, and that conse-
quently he is still speaking of Jews simply, not believing
Jews. But after all that had gone before, the notion of faith
was naturally implied in that of Abraham's seed. And to
understand the apostle's words, we must beware of connecting
the fjLovov, only, exclusively with the words ex rev vo/nov, of
the law : " those who are of the law only" that is to say, who
are simply Jews, and not believers. The ^ovov refers to the
whole phrase : rat e/c tov vofiov, only that which is of the law, as
is shown in the following context by the position of the Kal,
also, before the second tS : " not only that which is of the law,
but also that which "... that is to say : not only believers who
were formerly under the law, but also Gentile believers. The
attribute of faith is expressly mentioned in the case of the
last, because it appears in them free from all legal environ-
ment, and as their sole title to form part of Abraham's
descendants. — The last words : who is the father of us all,
sum up all that has been developed in the previous context.
Believing Jews and Gentiles, we all participate by faith not
only in justification, but also in the future possession of the
world ; for the true seed to whom this promise was made was
that of faith, not that according to the law. Abraham is
therefore the sole stem from which proceed those two branches
which form in him one and the same spiritual organism. — But
after all a Jew might still present himself, saying : " Very
true; but that this divine plan might be realized, it was
necessary that there should be an Israel; and that there
might be an Israel, there must needs come into the world an

302 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

Isaac. Now this son is born to Abraham in the way of
natural, physical generation ; and what has this mode of
filiation in common with the way of faith ?" Here in an
instant is the domain of the fiesh reconquered by the adver-
sary ; and to the question of ver. 1 : " What has Abraham
found by the flesh?" it only remains to answer: His son
Isaac, consequently the chosen people, and consequently every-
thing: A mind so familiarized as Paul's was with the secret
thoughts of the Israelitish heart, could not neglect this im-
portant side of the question. He enters into this new subject
as boldly as into the two preceding, and sapping the last root
of Jewish prejudice by Scripture, he demonstrates that the
birth of Isaac, no less than the promise of the inheritance and
the grace of justification, was the effect of faith. Thus it is
thoroughly proved that Abraham found nothing by the flesh ;
quod erat demonstrandum (ver. 1). This is the subject of
the third passage, 17-21.

3. Vv. 17-21.

The birth of Isaac was the work of faith ; the apostle proves
it by the Scripture narrative, the memory of which was pre-
sent to the mind of all his readers, and which was intended
to be recalled to them by the declaration, of ver. 3 relative to
Abraham's justification.

Ver. 17. " As it is written, I have made thee a father of
many natio7is, hefore God whom he believed, as Him, that
quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which he not as
tho^igh they were.'' — This verse is directly connected with the
end of ver. 12 ; for the last words of ver. 16 : who is the father
of us all, are the reproduction of the last words of ver. 12: the
faith of our father Abraham, The development, vv. 13-16,
had only been the answer to an anticipated objection. Eirst
of all, the general paternity of Abraham in relation to all
believers, Jew or Gentile, so solemnly afiirmed at the end of
ver. 16, is proved by a positive text, the words of Gen. xvi. 5.
The expression : father of many nations, is applied by several
commentators only to the Israelitish tribes. But why in this
case not use the term Ammim rather than Gojim, which is
the word chosen to denote the Gentiles in opposition to Israel ?

CHAP. IV. 17. 303

The promise i " Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven foi
multitude," can hardly be explained without holding that
when God spoke thus His view extended beyond the limits
of Israel. And how could it be otherwise, after His saying
to the patriarch : " In thee shall all the families of the earth be
blessed (or shall bless themselves)"? The full light of the
Messianic day shone beforehand in all these promises. — But
there was in this divine saying an expression which seemed
to be positively contradicted by the reality: I have made
thee. How can God speak of that which shall not be realized
till so distant a future as if it were an already accomplished
fact ? The apostle uses this expression to penetrate to the
very essence of Abraham's faith. In the eyes of God, the
patriarch is already what he shall become. Abraham plants
himself at the instant on the viewpoint of the divine thought :
he regards himself as being already in fact what God declares
he will become. Such, if we mistake not, is the idea ex-
pressed in the following words which have been so differently
explained ; hefore God whom he helieved. This hefore is fre-
quently connected with the words preceding the biblical
quotation : who is the father of us all But this verb in the
present : who is, was evidently meant in the context of ver.
16 to apply to the time when Paul was writing, which does
not harmonize with the expression hefore, which transports us
to the very moment when God conversed with Abraham. It
seems to me, therefore, better to connect this preposition with
the verb : / have made thee, understanding the words : " which
was already true before the God whom" . . . ; that is to say,
in the eyes of the God who was speaking with Abraham, the
latter was already made the father of those many nations.
There are two ways of resolving the construction KarivavTc ov
. . . Geov ; either : Karevavrc tov QeoO Karevavri ov iirLaTevae
(before the God before whom he believed) ; or : KarevavTi tov
&60V w eiricTTevae (before the God whom he believed). Perhaps
the first explanation of the attraction is most in keeping with
usage (anyhow there is no need to cite in its favour, as Meyer
does, Luke i. 4, which is better explained otherwise). But it
does not give a very appropriate meaning. The more natural
it is to state the fact that Abraham was there before God, the
more superfluous it is to mention further that it was in God's

304 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

presence Jie helieved. The second explanation, though less
usual when the dative is in question, is not at variance with
grammar ; and the idea it expresses is much more simple and
in keeping with the context ; for the two following participles
indicate precisely the two attributes which the faith of Abraham
lays hold of : *' before the God whom he believed as quickening
. . . and calling." — Two Mjj., F G, and the Feschito read eVt-
arevo-a^, thou didst believe. Erasmus had adopted this meaning
in his first editions, and it passed into Luther's translation.
These words were thus meant to be a continuation of the
quotation. It would be best in this case to explain the /care-
vavTL oH in the sense of dv6^ ov : " in respect of the fact that
thou didst believe." But this meaning is without example,
and the reading has not the shadow of probability. — The two
divine attributes on which the faith of Abraham fastened at
this decisive moment, were the power to quicken and the
power to create. It was, indeed, in this twofold character that
God presented Himself when He addressed to him the words
quoted : / have made thee — here is the assurance of a resur-
rection— father of many nations — here is the promise of a
creation. Faith imagines nothing arbitrarily ; it limits itself
to taking God as He offers Himself, but wholly. — The first
attribute, the power to quicken (or raise again), has sometimes
been explained in relation to facts which have no direct con-
nection with the context, such as the resurrection of the dead,
spiritually speaking (Orig. Olsh.), or the conversion of the
Gentiles (Ewald), or even the sacrifice of Isaac (Er. Mangold) !
But ver. 19 shows plainly enough what is the apostle's
meaning. It is in the patriarch's own person, already a
centenarian, and his wife almost as old as he, that a resurrec-
tion must take place if the divine promise is to be fulfilled. —
In the explanation of the second predicate, the far-fetched has
also been sought for the obvious ; there has been given to the
word call a spiritual signification (calling to salvation), or it
has even been applied to the primordial act of creation {icakelv,
to call, and by this caU to bring out of nothing). But how
with this meaning are we to explain the words w? ovra, a&
being ? Commentators have thus been led to give them the
force of 0)9 iaofieva or et? to elvai, as about to be, or in order
to their being; which is of course impossible. The simple

CHAP. IV. 18. ^ 305

meaning of the word call: to invite one to appear, is fully
sufficient. Man in this way calls beings which are ; on the
summons of the master the servant presents himself. But it
belongs to God to call beings to appear which are not, as if
they already were. And it is tlius God speaks to Abraham
of that multitude of future nations which are to form his
posterity. He calls them up before his view as a multitude
already present, as really existing as the starry heaven to
which He compares them, and says : *' / have made thee the
father of this multitude." The subjective negative firj before
ovra expresses this idea : " He calls as being what He knows
Himself to be non-existent." The two present participles,
quickening and calling, express a permanent attribute, belonging
to the essence of the subject. The passage thus understood
admirably teaches wherein faith consists. God shows us by
His promise not only what He wills to exist for us, but
what He wills us to become and what we already are in
His sight; and we, abstracting from our real state, and by a
sublime effort taking the position which the promise assigns
us, answer : Yea, I will be so ; I am so. Thus it is that
Abraham's faith corresponded to the promise of the God who
was speaking to him face to face. It is this true notion of
faith which the apostle seeks to make plain, by analysing more
profoundly what passed in the heart of the patriarch at the
time when he performed that act on which there rested the
foundation of the kingdom of God on the earth.

Ver. 18. " Who against hope believed in hope, that he might
become the father of many nations, according to that which was
spoken, So shall thy seed be" — The word hope is used here in
two different senses, the one subjective : hope as a feeling
(in the phrase: in hope), the other objective: hope to denote
the motive for hoping (in the phrase : against hope). It is
nearly the same in viii. 24, with this difference, that hope
in the latter passage, taken objectively, does not denote the
ground of hoping, but the object of hope (as in Col. i. 5). The
apostle therefore means : without finding in the domain of
sense or reason the least ground for hoping, he nevertheless
believed, and that by an effort of hope proceeding from a
fact which the eye did not see nor the reason comprehend,
God and His promise. This is the realization of the notion of

GODET. U EOM. I.

306 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITIL

faith expressed Heb. xi. 1, a notion wliicli is so often wrongly
contrasted with the conception of Paul. Instead of: he
believed in hope, it seems as if it should have been : he hoped
on (the foundation of) his faith. But the Ittl is taken here
nearly in the same sense as in the frequent phrases: e^r'
evvoia, eir €')(6pa, in goodwill, in hatred ; eirl ^evia, in hospi-
tality. His faith burst forth in the form of hope, and that in
a situation which presented no ground for hope. — Translators
generally weaken the expression eU to ryeveaOat, in order to
hecome, by suppressing the idea of intention : " and thus it is
that he became " (Oltram.), or : " and he believed that he would
become" (Osterv.). This substitution of the result for the
intention is grammatically inadmissible. He really believed
with the intention of becoming. If he grasped the promise
with such energy, it certainly was in order that it might be
realized. It is therefore unnecessary to ascribe this notion
of aim to God, as Meyer does. — The following verses develope
the two notions: against hope (ver. 19), and in hope (vv.
20, 21.

Vv. 19, 20. "And being not weak in faith, he con^idered^
Ms own body nov? dead — he was about an hundred years old —
and the deadness of Sarah's womb; but having regard to the
promise, he staggered not through unbelief; but was strong,
giving glory to God by his faith." — Abraham is represented in
this passage as placed between two opposite forces, that of
sight, which turns to the external circumstances (ver. 19), and
that of faith, which holds firmly to the promise (ver. 20).
The Be, but, of ver. 20, expresses the triumph of faith over
sight. — We find in ver. 1 9 one of the most interesting various
readings in the text of our Epistle. Two of the three families
of MSS., the Greco-Latin and the Byz., read the negative ov
before KaTevorjae: he considered not. The effect of the sub-
jective negative firj before acrOevrjaa^;, being weak, on the
principal verb would then be rendered thus, because : " because
he was not weak in faith, he considered not" . . . The
meaning is good : the look of faith fixed on the promise pre-
vented every look cast on the external circumstances which

1 The »u, whieii T. R. reads here, with D E F G K L P, It., is rejected by
K A B C, Syr. Or. (Lat. trans.).
'•* B F G, It Syr. Or. omit nin, which is found in all the rest

CHAP. IV. 19, 20. 307

might have made him stagger, as was the case with Peter,
w}io, as long as he looked to Jesus, regarded neither the winds
nor the waves. But the Alex, family, with the Peschito
this time on its side, rejects the ov. The meaning is then
wholly different : " not being weak in faith, he looked at
(or considered) his deadened body . . . but for all that (Se,
ver. 20) he staggered not" . . . This reading seems to be
preferable to the preceding, for it better explains the contrast
indicated by the he, hut, of ver. 20. The meaning is also
more forcible. He considered . . . but he did not let himself
be shaken by the view, discouraging as it was. The /li? before
d(T6evriaa<; may be explained either as a reflection of the
author intended to bring out a circumstance which accompanied
this view (he considered without being weak), or, what is better,
as indicating the negative cause, which controls all that follows
(vv. 19, 20) : "because he was not weak in faith, he regarded
. . . but did not stagger." In favour of the Eeceived reading :
" he considered not "... the passage has been alleged :
"Abraham laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be
born unto him that is an hundred years old ? and shall Sarah,
that is ninety years old, bear ? " (Gen. xvii. 1 7) ; a passage
which, according to this view, gave occasion to the rejection
of the negative ov. This is not wholly impossible. But the
time to which this passage (Gen. xvii.) applies is not the
same as that of which the apostle here speaks (Gen. xv.).

Ver. 20. The 8e, hit, denotes the contrast to the possible
and natural result of this consideration. Strictly speaking, the
antithesis would have been the evehwapLcoOrj, he strengthened
himself; but the apostle feels the need of reminding us first,
in a negative form, of what might have been so easily pro-
duced under such conditions. — The et? ttjv eTrayyeXlav, in
regard to the promise, stands foremost. It was the object in
contrast to that which was presented to his view by the
effeteness of his own body and Sarah's. For the force of et?,
comp. xvi. 19. — The verb here : StaKplveaOat, to doubt, properly
signifies to be parted, or to be divided into two men, one
affirming, the other denying ; one hoping and giving himself
up, the other waiting to see : " but in regard to the promise,
there was no division in him." The complement : of God,
brings out that which gave the promise this full power over

308 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

his heart. — In the clause : through uribelief, the Greek substan-
tive is preceded by the article : through the unbelief common
among men, the well-known unbelief. — The oXkd, hut, is more
strongly adversative than the Se : " But quite the contrary."
This word forcibly contrasts the idea of the strength drawn
from the promise with the weakness arising from doubt.
The verb iveBwafiooOrj may be translated as a passive : he was
strengthened; comp. Heb. xi. 34; but it may also be taken in
the middle and reflective sense : he strengthened himself, rein-
vigorated himself, Acts ix. 22; Eph. vi. 1 0. The antithesis
of the hiaKpiOrjvdi, to doubt, speaks rather in favour of the
middle sense, unless we recur to the simply intransitive mean-
ing : he grew in strength ; this shade would perhaps be pre-
ferable ; it harmonizes with the preposition iv, which enters
into the composition of the verb, and denotes a growth of
inward strength. In proportion as he contemplated the
promise with a fixed regard, in which he put, so to speak, his
whole soul, his entire being, body and spirit, was penetrated
with a new force, the principle of the complete resurrection
in which he had made bold to believe (ver. 17).

The clause hy faith is usually connected with the verb he
was strengthened ; but so understood, these words do little
more than repeat what has already been sufficiently expressed.
It is better, therefore, to join them with the following parti-
ciple: "by faith (by this faith) giving glory to God." The
position of this word, heading the clause to which it is tlius
joined, corresponds with the importance of the idea of faith in
the whole piece. Man was created to glorify God. He did
not do so by his obedience. It is hy faith, at least, that in
his state of sin he can return to the fulfilment of this glorious
destination. — To give glory to God means in Scripture, to render
homage, either by word or deed, to one or other of God's
attributes, or to His perfection in general. Wherein, in this
case, did the homage consist ? The apostle tells us in ver. 2 1 :
in the firm conviction which he cherished of God's faithfulness
to His word and of His power to fulfil it.

Vv. 21, 22. " Being^ fully persuaded that, what He has
promised, He is able also to perform. Therefore ^ also righteous-

^ E F G, It. omit the xui here, which all the others read.
* B D F G, Syr. omit ««i after ^io.

CHAP. IV. 23, 24. 309

ness was imputed to him" — UXrjpo^opetv, to fill a vessel to the
brim ; this word used in the passive applies to a man filled
with a conviction which leaves no place in his heart for the
least doubt. It is the opposite of the hiaKpiveaOaL, to he
invsardly divided, of ver. 20. If the relation between the two
participles : giving glory and heing persuaded, is as we have
said, we should probably omit the Kal, and, which begins this
verse in the Alex, and Byz., and prefer the Greco-Latin reading
which rejects it. — As to tlie Kal, also, before Trocrjaai, to do, it
well expresses the inseparable relation which the moral per-
fection of God establishes between His saying and His doing.
If His power were not equal to the height of His promise, He
would not promise.

Ver. 22 suras up the whole development relating to
Abraham's faith, vv. 1-21, to clear the way for the final
application which Paul had in view. Alo, wherefore, refers to
what has just been said of the confidence with which Abraham
laid hold of God's promise, ver. 21. God ascribed to that
confidence which glorified Him the worth of perfect righteous-
ness. The Kal, also (" wherefore also "), found in the Alex,
and Byz. Mjj., points to the moral relation which exists
between faith and the imputation made of that faith. The
subject of ikoylaOi), was counted, might be the irLGrevaau,
believing, understood ; but it is simpler to regard the verb as
impersonal : " there was in relation to him an imputation of
rigliteousness." This saying is more expressly connected with
the first of the three subjects treated in this chapter, Abraham's
justification, vv. 1—12 ; but it sums up at the same time the
two others, the inheritance of the world and the birth of
Isaac, which are, so to speak, its complements. Thus is intro-
duced the fourth part, which contains the application to
existing believers, vv. 23-25.

4. Vv. 23-25.

Vv. 23, 24. " Novj it was not written for his sake alone, that
it ivas imputed to him ; but for us also, to whom it shall be
imputed, when we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord
from the dead!' — The apostle extracts the permanent principle
contained in Abraham's case to apply it to us. The he, now.

310 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

marks this advance. AC avrov.for Mm (strictly : on account
of him), does not signify to his honour (Beza, Thol.). The
idea is that the narrative was written not merely to relate a
fact belonging to Abraham's history, but also to preserve the
knowledge of an event which should take place in ours. So
it will be on the condition expressed by the following parti-
ciple Toh iriaTevovcTLV, for us who believe, the meaning of which
we have rendered freely in the translation (when we believe).
Every time this condition shall be fulfilled, the same imputa-
tion will certainly take place ; such is the meaning of the word
/ieXXet, is to. — But what in our position now will be the
object of faith ? Faith in the biblical sense can only have one
object. Whether Abraham or we be the parties in question,
this object, always the same, is God and His manifestation.
But, in consequence of the unceasing progress which takes
place in the divine work, the mode of this manifestation
cannot but change. In the case of Abraham, God revealed
Himself by the promise of an event to be accomplished ; the
patriarch required therefore to believe in the form of hope, by
cleaving to the divine attribute which could realize it. In our
position now we are in presence of an accomplished fact, the
display of the almighty grace of God in the resurrection of
Jesus. The object of faith is therefore different in form and
yet the same in substance : God and His manifestation, then
in word, now in act. What closely binds the two historical
facts brought into connection, though so distant, the birth of
Isaac and the resurrection of Jesus, is that they are the two
extreme links of one and the same chain, the one the point of
departure, the other the consummation of the history of salva-
tion. But it must not be imagined that, because it falls to us
to believe in an accomplished fact, faith is now nothing more
than historical credence given to the reality of this fact. The
apostle at once sets aside this thought when he says, not:
" when we believe in the resurrection of Jesus," but : " when
we believe in God who raised Jesus;" comp. Col. ii. 12. He
excludes it likewise when he designates this Jesus raised from
the dead as oiir Lord, one who has been raised by this divine
act to the position of representative of the divine sovereignty,
and especially to the Headship of the body of the church.
He gives it to be understood, finally, by unfolding in the

CHAP. IV. 25. 311

following verse the essential contents of this supreme object
of faith.

Ver. 25. " Who was delivered on account of o\ir offences, and
was raised again on account of our justification^ — In the title
our Lord there was involved the idea of a very intimate rela-
tion between Jesus and us. This mysterious and gracious
solidarity is summed up in two symmetrical clauses, which in
a few clear and definite terms present its two main aspects.
He was delivered on account of our offences. Perhaps Paul
means by the phrase: heing delivered, to remind us of the
description of the servant of Jehovah, Isa. liii. : " His soul
was delivered {irapehoOrf) to death" (ver. 12). He who
delivers Him, according to Eom. viii. 32, is God Himself:
" who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us
all." Paul has told us, iii. 25, for what end this act was
necessary. It was required to manifest conspicuously the
righteousness of God. Every sinner needed to be brought to
say : See what I deserve ! Thus justice was satisfied and
pardon possible. And He was raised again on account of our
justification. Commentators are unanimous, if I mistake not,
in translating : for our justification, as if it were -tt/do? or et9,
and not hid {on account of). This for is explained in the
sense that the resurrection of Christ was needed in order that
faith might be able to appropriate the expiation which was
accomplished, and that so justification, of which faith is the
condition, might take place. But what a roundabout way of
arriving at the explanation of this for ! And if the apostle
really meant /or {with a view to), why repeat this same pre-
position hid, which he had just used in the parallel proposition,
in its natural sense of on account of, while the language
supplied him with prepositions appropriate to the exact
expression of his thought (tt/so?, eU, iii. 25, 26) ? I am not
surprised that in this way several commentators have found
in this symmetry established between the facts of salvation
nothing more than an artificial distribution, belonging to the
domain of rhetoric rather than to that of dogmatics, and that
one has even gone the length of reproaching the apostle " for
sacrificing to the mania of parallelism." If we were shut up
to the explanation referred to, we could only joiu regretfully
in this judgment. But it is not so. Let us take the hid in

312 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

its natural sense, as we are bound to do by its use in the first
proposition. In the same way as Jesus died because of our
offences, that is, our (merited) condemnation. He was raised
hecause of our (accomplished) justification. Our sin had killed
Him ; our justification raised Him again. How so ? The
expiation of our trespasses once accomplished by His death,
and the right of God's justice proved in earnest, God could
pronounce the collective acquittal of future believers, and
He did so. Over the blood of the sacrifice a sentence of
justification was pronounced in favour of guilty man ; his
condemnation was annulled. Now, in view of this divine fact,
a corresponding change must necessarily be wrought in the
person of Christ Himself By the same law of solidarity
whereby our condemnation had brought Him to the cross, our
justification must transform His death into life. When the
debtor is proved insolvent, his security is thrown into prison ;
but as soon as the latter succeeds in clearing the debt, the
debtor is legally set free, and his security is liberated with
him. For he has no debt of his own. Such is the bond of
solidarity formed by the plan of God between Christ and us.
Our lot is as it were interwoven with His : we sin. He dies ;
we are justified. He lives again. This is the key to the
declaration, 1 Cor. xv. 17: " If Jesus be not risen, ye are yet
in your sins." So long as the security is in prison the debt is
not paid ; the immediate effect of payment would be his libera-
tion. Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we should be more
than ignorant whether our debt were paid ; we might be certain
that it was not. His resurrection is the proof of our justifica-
tion only because it is the necessary effect of it. What Paul
required to say, therefore, was htd, on account of, and not eZ?,
with a view to. If in Christ dead humanity disappeared con-
demned, in Christ raised again it appears acquitted. And now
what is the part of faith in relation to the resurrection thus
understood ? Exactly that of Abraham in regard to the
divine promise. On hearing the promise, he no longer saw
himself as he was, but he considered himself as the promise
made him. So, the resurrection of Christ once completed, wo
have no longer to see ourselves as we are in ourselves, but
as this fact reveals us to our view : justified. For this resur-
rection is the incarnation of my justification. If death is the

CHAP. V. 1-11. 313

payment of my debt, resurrection is, as it were, the acknow-
ledgment of it.

We must beware, therefore, if we would not efface from che
Scriptures their most magnificent revelation, of giving to the
word BtKaieoa-ifi, justification, as several commentators, Bollin-
ger for example, the entirely arbitrary sense of sanctification :
Jesus was raised with a view to our moral amelioration ! — or
of bringing in here, as some Protestant commentators do
(Calv., Thol., Philip.) into the notion of the resurrection, those
of the heavenly dominion and intercession ot Christ. The
resurrection is here presented by Paul in express terms in its
relation to what preceded, namely. His death, not the glorified
existence which followed.

Thus is finished the demonstration of the harmony between
the revelation of the Old Testament and the justification by
faith revealed in the gospel. The grand truth of the right-
eousness of faith, summarily enunciated iii. 21, 22, was first
placed on its historical foundation, the work of God in Christ,
iii. 23-26 ; then it was confirmed by its harmony with the
Old Testament; first with the spirit of the law, iii. 27-31,
then with the example of Abraham, iv. 1—24. One question
might yet be raised : Will this justification by faith, which
saves us at present, hold good in the future ? Can it assure
us of salvation even before the judgment-seat ? It is to the
solution of this so grave question that the following piece
is devoted. Thus will be closed the didactic exposition of
justification by faith.

ELEVENTH PASSAGE (V. 1-11).
The Certainty of final Salvation for Believers,

The title which we have just given to this piece suffices to
indicate the difference between the idea which we form of its
scope and aim, and that which prevails on the subject in the
commentaries. Commentators, except Meyer to some extent,
and Th. Schott more completely, see in the following piece
the exposition of the fruits of justification by faith ; to wit,
peace, ver. 1 ; the hope of glory, ver. 2 ; patience, ver. 3
et seq. ; and tlie feeling of the love of God, ver. 5 et

314 JUSTIFICATION BY FiVITII.

seq.^ But, first, such a juxtaposition of effects so diverse would
not correspond with the nature of Paul's genius. Then chaps,
vi-viii are intended, as all allow, to expound Christian sanc-
tification as the fruit of justification by faith. But if the
piece V. 1-11 were the beginning of the description of the
fruits of justification, why interrupt the delineation by the
parallel of Adam and Christ, which does not naturally belong
to it ? One cannot be surprised, if it is so, at the judgment
of Eeuss, who alleges that in the matter of systematic order
our Epistle leaves something to be desired (Gesch. d. iV". T.
Schr. § 108). To escape this difficulty, Lange and Schaff,
following Eothe's example, think we should close the exposi-
tion of justification at v. 11, and make the parallel of the
two Adams the opening of a new division, that relating to
sanctification. We shall state the exegetical reasons which
absolutely prevent us from referring the passage v. 12-21
to the work of sanctification. Here we merely call the atten-
tion of the reader to the particle hua tovto, wherefore, v. 12,
by which the second part of our chapter is closely joined to
what precedes, and which makes the following piece not the
opening of a new part, but the close of that which we arc
studying (i. 18-v. 11). As to the disorder which Eeuss attri-
butes to the apostolic doctrine, we think we can show that the
author of the Epistle is entirely innocent, and that it is solely

^ Calvin : "The apostle begins to demonstrate what he has aflBrmed of justi-
fication 6?/ its effects." — Tholuck entitles this passage: "the beneficent patho-
logico-religioiis influence of this means of salvation. " — Olshausen : of the fruits
of faith, adding at the same time that the apostle could of course only sketch
these consequences of faith here, but that he will develope them afterwards.
Philippi : "the beneficent consequences of justification. " Eeuss says: "the
piece describes the efi'ects of justification on the man who is its object."
Lange and Schaff: "the fruit of justification." Hodge: "the consequences
of justification : 1. Faith; 2. Free access to God; 3. Our afflictions auxiliary
to hope ; 4. The certainty of final salvation." Kenan says : "the fruit of justi-
fication is peace with God, hope, and consequently patience." Hofmann sums
up thus : " Let us enter into this relation of peace with God, in which we have
the hope of glory, consolation in trials, love to God, and the certainty of deliver-
ance from final wrath." Bossuet : " the happy fruits of justification by faith."
Meyer better: "Paul now expounds the blessed certainty of salvation for the
pi-esent and future." Holsten has some expressions which approach this point
of view. Schott is the only one with whom I find myself entirely in accord
in the understanding of this piece. He entitles it : The certainty of the he.
Hever's preservation in salvation, and of the final consummation of this salvation
KV- 234).

315

chargeable on his expositors. The apostle never thought of
explaining, in the piece which we are about to study, the
fruits of justification ; he simply finishes treating the subject of
justification itself. What good, indeed, would be served by an
argument in regular form like that which we find in vv. 6-8
and in vv. 9, 10, which are real syllogisms, to demonstrate
what is obvious at a glance : that peace with God flows from
justification ? Was it not enough to indicate the fact ? The
view of the apostle is therefore entirely different. From this
point he turns his attention to t\iQ future which opens up
before the justified soul. It is not at its goal ; a career of
trials and struggles awaits it. Will its state of justification
hold good till it can possess the finished salvation ? The
apprehension of divine wrath exists in the profound depths
of man's heart. A trespass suffices to reawaken it. What
justified one will not sometimes put the anxious question,
Will the sentence by which my faith was reckoned to me for
righteousness be still valid before the judgment-seat ; and in
the day of im^ath (ver. 9) will this salvation by grace, in which
I now rejoice, still endure ? It is the answer to this ever-
reviving fear which the following piece is intended to give.
We are still, therefore, engrossed with the subject of justifica-
tion. The exegesis, I hope, will prove the truth of this view,
which makes this piece an essential waymark in the progress
of the Epistle. As is usual with Paul, the theme of the
whole passage is expressed in the first words, vv. 1 and 2.

Vv. 1, 2. " Therefore, heing justified hy faith, we have^ peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ : by whom also we have
obtained access by faith ^ into this grace wherein we stand, and
triumph in the hojpe of the glory of God." — The meaning of
ver. 1 is as follows : " Since, then, we have obtained by means of
faith our sentence of justification from God, we find ourselves
transferred relatively to Him into a state of peace, which
henceforth displaces in our minds the fear of wrath." — The
form of expression : elprjvqv e')(eLv 7rp6<;, is common in classic
Greek (see Meyer). But must we not read, with the great
majority of Mjj. and Vss., the subjunctive e'^w/juev, let us ha,ve,

^ T. R. reads ^x"/^^*} with F G P (and besides the first corrector of ^ and the
\hird of B). The eight other Mjj. It. Sj^, read i;^ea/!iiv.
* The words th triffru are omitted by B D E F G, Or. (Lat. trans.).

316 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

instead of e^ofJiev, we have, we possess ? This reading is
adopted by Hofm., Gess, Volkm. ; it makes this ver. 1 an
exliortation. But how happens it that immediately after-
wards the didactic tone recommences and continues uniformly
to the end of the piece, without any resuming of the ex-
hortation ? This reading certainly arises from a mistaken
correction, which owes its origin to the erroneous idea which
has been formed of the piece (see above). Perhaps, also, it
is due to the fact that a liturgical reading began with this
verse. No exegete has been able to account satisfactorily for
this imperative suddenly occurring in the midst of a didactic
development. — The words: through our Lord Jesus Christ,
are explained by commentators, and even by Meyer, as re-
ferring to the work of expiation previously described. We
cannot admit this view, for the following reasons : 1. The
work of expiation is cited in ver. 2 as a benefit wholly dis-
tinct from that to which ver. 1 refers ; Bi ov Kai, by whom
also, are the words in the beginning of ver. 2. It is there-
fore impossible, without useless repetition, to explain the two
expressions, through our Lord, ver. 1, and by whom also, ver. 2,
in reference to the same mediation. Now the mediation of
ver, 2 is undoubtedly that which Jesus effected by the atone-
ment. That of ver. 1 must therefore refer to another work.
2. The mediation of which ver. 2 speaks is mentioned as an
accomplished fact, the verb being in the perfect : ia'^i^Kufjuev,
we have obtained, while the present e^ofiev, we have, refers to
a present and permanent taking in possession, o. If the
clause : through our Lord Jesus Christ, referred to the work of
expiation, it would probably be joined to the participle hiKaia)'
OevTe^, having been justified, rather than to the verb we possess.
The mistake of exegesis arises from the fact that there has not
been recognised in this verse the theme, and, so to speak,
the title of the whole piece (on to ver. 11), a piece which
refers not to the act of justification, but to the present and
future of the justified. When he says : we have peace with
God, the apostle means : we can henceforth regard God with
entire serenity, not only as to the past, but also in view of
the future, and even of the judgment ; for — this is the thought
with which he closes the exposition about to follow — we
have in Christ, besides the mediation of His diath, by which

CHAP. V. 1, 2. 317

we have already been justified (hiKaiwOevre^^), that of His life,
by which we shall be maintained in this state of salvation ;
comp. vv. 9 and 10, which are the authentic explanation of
the clause : th7'oitgli our Lord Jesus Christ, ver. 1. In this
way ver. 2, which refers to the atonement, ceases to have the
effect of a repetition. — Schott says to the same purpose : " As
it is to the person of Christ that we owed access into grace
(ver. 2), it is the same person of Christ which assures us of
the perfecting of salvation (ver. 1)."

Ver. 2. Paul here reminds us that the Jesus who henceforth
makes our salvation sure (hy His life), is no other Mediator
than the Jesus who has already purchased our justification
(hy His death). Thus is explained the hi ov Kal, " by whom
also!' The blessing of reconciliation by His death, explained
above, was the foundation of the new grace he had in view
throughout the whole piece. Comp. a similar return to a
past development intended to serve as the starting-point of a
new one, iii. 23. Before passing to the new grace, he is con-
cerned to recall the former, to impress the conviction that
we owe all, absolutely all, to this Jesus only. The perfect
i(T')(riKaiJiev expresses au act of taking possession already past,
though the possession continues. — The term irpocra^w'yr], which
we have translated by the word access, sometimes signifies the
act of Iringing or introducing ; it may, for example, designate
the manoeuvre by which engines of war are brought close to
the walls of a besieged city (comp. Meyer). It might be
understood in this sense : " by whom we have obtained intro-
duction into this grace." But the word has also sometimes an
intransitive meaning : the right of entering, access. The other
substantives compounded from the same verb have often an
analogous meaning ; thus avwywr^rj, setting out to sea ; irepi-
a^w'yri, circular motion. And certainly this intransitive meaning
is preferable here. The first would be suitable if the matter
in question were introduction to an individual, a sovereign
for example ; but with an impersonal regimen, such as grace,
the meaning of access to is more natural. It is in this sense
also that the word is taken Eph. ii. 18 and iii. 12, if we are
not mistaken. The words rfj irlarei, hy faith, are wanting in
the Vat. and the Greco-Latins. If they are authentic, they
simply remind us of the part previously ascribed to faith in

318 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

justification. But it is improper, with some commentators,
to make the regimen : to Ms grace, dependent on it. Such a
form of speech : TriaTt^ ek x^P^^> would be without example
in the New Testament. The words : to this grace, complete
the notion of access to : " At the time when we believed (rfi
irla-Tei) we had access to this grace in which we are now
established." — The perfect ecrrrj/ca signifies : I have been
placed in this state, and I am in it. This word, which has
the meaning of a present, recalls us to the e'^ofiev, we have
henceforth, of ver. 1, and forms the transition to the following
idea : " and (in this state) we glory." — This last proposition
(ver. 2) might be made dependent on the relative pronoun in
vjhich. The meaning would be : " this grace in which we
henceforth stand and glory." But this construction is some-
what awkward. Ver. 2 being already a sort of parenthesis,
in the form of an incidental proposition, it is unnatural to
prolong the appendix still further. We therefore connect the
words : and we glory, with the principal idea of ver. 1 : wf
have peace. It is a climax : " not only do we no longer dreaci
any evil at the hand of God, but we have even when we
think of Him the joyful hope of all blessing." It is the
feeling of security raised to the anticipated joy of triumph.
These last words confirm our explanation of the e^ofiev, " we
have henceforth," ver. 1. For they express more obviously
still the conviction of the justified man in relation to his
future. In reality, the object of this triumphant conviction
is the certain hope of glory. The phrase : the glory of God,
denotes the glorious state which God Himself possesses, and
into which He will admit the faithful; see on iii. 23. — The
Kav')(aG6aL, to glory, is the blessed conviction and forcible (but
humble, 1 Cor. i. 31) profession of assurance in God. But
some one will ask the apostle: And what of the tribulations of
life ? Do you count them nothing ? Do they not threaten to
make you lower your tone ? Not at all ; for they will only serve
to feed and revive the hope which is the ground of this glorying.
This reply is contained and justified in the following verses.

Vv. 3, 4. " And not only so, hut ^ ive glory in tribulations
also: knowing that tribulation worJceth endurance; and endurance,
ex'perience ; and experience, hope" — This passage being, strictly
* B C read »a»x''/*'**** instead of »uv:^a/ftifiet.

CHAP. V. 3, 4. 319

speaking, the answer to an nnexpressed objection, it is natural
that it should recur (end of ver. 4 and 5) to the idea of liope.
The participle Kavxpufievoiy and even glorying, which is found in
B C, would correspond very well with the digressive character
evidently belonging to these verses. But it is probable that
this form has been borrowed from that of ver. 11. — The
regimen of we glory, literally translated, would be : in afflic-
tions. But this translation would not render the idea of the
text in our language [French]. It would express the circum-
stances in the midst of which the believer glories, while the
Greek phrase denotes the object itself of which he boasts ; comp.
1 Cor. i. 31: "to glory in the Lord," for : on account of the pos-
session of the Lord ; 2 Cor. xii. 9 : "to glory in his weaknesses,"
for : to extract glory froyri his very weaknesses. Thus Paul
means here : to make his afflictions themselves a reason of
triumph. This strange thought is explained by what follows ;
for the climax which is about to be traced proves that it is
tribulations that make hope break forth in all its vigour.
Now it is this feeling which is the ground for Kav^dadat (to
glory). — The words knowing that introduce the logical exposi-
tion of the process whereby affliction becomes transformed in
the believer into hope. First, affliction gives rise to patience,
v7rofiov7]v. This Greek word, coming from vtto and fiivetv,
literally : to keep good under (a burden, blows, etc.), might be
translated by endurance. From want of this word [in French]
we say constancy. — Ver. 4. Endurance in its turn worketh
experience, BoKLfirjv. This is the state of a force or virtue
which has stood trials. This force, issuing victorious from the
conflict, is undoubtedly the faith of the Christian, the worth
of which he has now proved by experience. It is a weapon
of which henceforth he knows the value. The word BoKifio^
frequently denotes in the same sense the proved Christian,
the man who has shown what he is, comp. xiv. 18, and the
opposite, 1 Cor. x. 27. We find in the New Testament two
sayings that are analogous, though slightly different : Jas.
i. 3, where the neuter substantive Eo/cifMLov denotes, not like
hoKLfxr) here, the state of the thing proved, but the means of
proof, tribulation itself; and 1 Pet. i. 7, where the same sub-
stantive SoKLfjuLov seems to us to denote that which in the faith
of the believer has held good in suffering, has shown itself

320 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. '

real and effective, the gold which has come forth purified from
the furnace. — When, finally, the believer has thus experienced
the divine force with which faith fills him in the midst of
suffering, he feels his hope rise. Nothing which can happen
him in the future any longer affrights him. The prospect of
glory opens up to him nearer and more brilliant. How many
Christians have declared that they never knew the gladness of
faith, or lively hope, till they gained it by means of tribulation !
With this word hope the apostle has returned to the end of
ver. 2 ; and as there are deceitful hopes, he adds that the one
of which he speaks {the hope of glory, ver. 2) runs no risk
of being falsified by the event.

Ver. 5. " Novj hope maheth not ashamed ; hecause the love of
God is shed ahroad in our hearts ly the Holy Ghost which is
given unto us" — This verse is the central saying of the entire
passage. On the one hand, it is directly connected with the
two first verses : " We no longer feel any fear ; nay, rather,
we triumph in the hope of glory, a hope which is rendered
brighter even by sufferings." On the other hand, this verse
contains all that follows. This hope will not be falsified in
the end by the event ; this is what the second part of the
passage proceeds to prove (vv. 6-11). — The word make ashamed
refers to the non-realization of the hope when the hour of
glory has struck. The present maketh not ashamed is the
present of the idea. This falsification, inflicted on the hopes
of faith by facts, and the possibility of which is denied by the
apostle, is not that with which the truth of materialism would
confound them. This idea is foreign to the mind of Paul
The matter in question in the context is the terrible position
of the justifiea man who in the day of judgment should find
himself suddenly face to face with unappeased wrath. Paul
declares such a supposition impossible. Why ? Because the
source of his hope is the revelation of God Himself which he
has received, of the love of which he is the object. The
reawakening of wrath against him is therefore an inadmissible
fact. — The love of God cannot denote here our love for God, as
Hofmann would have it. It is true this critic thoroughly
recognises the imperfections always attaching to our love.
But he thinks that Paul is here looking at the believer's love
to his God only as a irw,Tk of our renewal by the Holy Spirit.

CHAP. V. 5. 321

Nevertheless, this meaning must be rejected; first, on ac-
count of the choice of the verb eKKe^vTai, is shed abroad
(see below) ; next, because the following verses (6—8), joined
by for to ver. 5, develope the idea of God's love to us, not
that of our love to God ; finally, because the syllogism finished
in vv. 9, 10 would want its basis (its minor) if the fact of
God's love to us had not been established in the preceding
context. The love of God is therefore the love with which
God loves us. The verb translated by is shed abroad, literally
signifies : to be 'poured out of Paul means : out of the heart
of God, where this love has its source, into ours. The perfect
used here signifies that there was a time when this effusion
took place, and that since then it has not been withdrawn.
It is this meaning of the perfect which explains the use of
the preposition of rest, iv (in^ without the idea of motion),
instead of eh (into, with motion). This preposition refers to
the whole state which has resulted from the effusion. There
was an act of revelation in the heart of believers, the fruit of
which is the permanent impression of the love which God has
for them. The medium of this transfusion of the divine love
into their heart was the Holy Spirit. We see, 1 Cor. ii. 10-12,
that this Divine Being, after having sounded the depths of
God, reveals them to the man to whom He imparts Himself.
Thereby we become privy to what is passing in God, in par-
ticular, to the feeling which He cherishes towards us, just as
we should be to a feeling which we might ourselves cherish
towards another. In general, the work of the Spirit consists
in breaking down the barrier between beings, and placing
them in a common luminous atmosphere, in which each hears
the heart of his neighbour beat as if it were his own. And
this is the relation which the Spirit establishes, not only
between man and man, but between man and God Himself;
comp. John xiv. 19, 20. The aorist participle hoOevTo^, which
is given to us, reminds us of two things : the time when this
heaven was opened to the believer, and the objective and per-
fectly real character of this inward revelation. It was not a
case of exalted feeling or excited imagination ; it was God
who imparted Himself; comp. John xiv. 21 and 23. — The
transition from ver. 5 to 6 seems to me to be one of the points
on which exegesis has left most to be desired. Commentators

GODET. X KOM. L

322 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH,

confine themselves in general to saying that ver. 6 gives the
external proof, the proof from fact, of that divine love shed
abroad in our hearts, and that the proof is the sacrifice of
Christ, vv. 6—8. But this inorganic juxtaposition of the
internal proof, ver. 5, and the external proof, ver. 6, is not
satisfactory ; and this explanation does not correspond to the
use of the particle for, which implies a much more intimate
relation of ideas. The object is to frove that this hope of
glory, whose source is the inward revelation of the love of
Ood, will not be falsified by the event in the hour of judg-
ment. For this end, what does the apostle do ? He does
not merely allege an external fact already past ; he penetrates
to the essence of that internal revelation of which he has just
been speaking in ver. 5. He analyses, so to speak, its con-
tents, and transforming this ineffable feeling into a rigorous
syllogism, he deduces from it the following argument, which
is that of the Spirit Himself in the heart of the believer :
God loved thee when thou wast yet a sinner, giving thee a
proof of love such as men do not give to one another, even
when they respect and admire one another the most, and
when the devotion of love is carried among them to its sub-
limest height (vv. 6-8). Such is the minor, the divine love
already manifested in the fact of redemption. The understood
major is to this effect : Now the love which one has testified
to his enemies does not belie itself when these have become
better than enemies, friends. The conclusion is expressly
stated, vv. 9, 10 : If, then, God testified to thee, to thee when
yet an enemy, a love beyond all comparison, how shouldst
thou, once justified and reconciled, have to fear falling back
again under wrath? It is obvious that to the end of the
passage, from ver. 6, the whole forms one consecutive reason-
ing, and this reasoning is joined by for to ver. 5, because it
serves only to expound in a reasoned form the language which
the Holy Spirit holds to the heart of the believer, and by which
He sustains his hope, even through earthly tribulations.

Vv. 6-8. ''For when we were yet^ without strength^ in due

1 Three principal readings : T. E. with 5< A C D E K P, the Mnn. Marc. Or.
(Lat. trans.) Syr. read in yxp ; F G, It. : us ti yap; B : u yt.

"KABCDEFG read st< after mfh^u* (consequently, K A C D E read this
word twice).

CHAP. V. C-8. 323

time Christ died for the ungodly. For hardly for a righteous
man will one die : ^ for peradventure for the good man some
would even dare to die. But God conwiendeth His love toiuards
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." — The
for might be rendered by in fact. The inward revelation of
•divine love, whereby the Holy Spirit certifies to the believer
that his hope of glory shall not be deceived, is now to be set
in full light. The authenticity of this for is sufficiently
attested — (1) By the reading of the Alex., Byz. : eVt yap;
(2) By that of the Greco-Latin : ek rl yap; (3) By that of
the Va£. itself, which reads etye; for this 7 seems to be a
remnant of the primitive yap. The reading of the Alex, and
Byz. MSS., which put the ere, yet, at the head of the sentence,
is likewise authentic. For, to the weight of the authorities
there is added the decisive importance of this little word, in
which there is concentrated the whole force of the following
verses : " God testified His love to us when we were yet in a
state which rendered us wholly unworthy of it. . . . How
much more " . . . ! The Greco-Latin reading : eZ? tI yap, for
what end ? is a corruption of this not understood en. A
question relative to the end of divine love would be out of
place in this argument, where it is not the end, but the
particular character of the love which is in question. It is
-wholly different with the reading of the Vat. : eXye, if at least,
which perfectly suits the meaning of the passage, whether the
if be made dependent on the proposition: hope maketh not
ashamed, ver. 0, — and to this the at least points, — or whether
it be taken as the beginning of the following argument : " If
Christ died . . . with much stronger reason . . . (ver. 9)."
This construction, adopted by Ewald, is excellent; only it
obliges us to make vv. 7 and 8 a parenthesis, which is com-
plicated and unnecessary, since the reading bti, yet, gives in a
simpler form exactly the same sense : " When we were yet
without strength, Christ died . . . ; with much stronger
reason . . . ver. 9." Ver. 6 describes the miserable con-
dition in which we were at the time when divine love was
extended to us. We were weak, aa-deveU. The word often
means sick (1 Cor. xi. 30). Here it expresses total incapacity

^ Instead of hxaieVf which all the documents read, the Syriac translation seems
to have read aotxat.

324 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

for good, the want of all moral life, such as is healthy and
fruitful in good works. It was certainly not a state fitted to
win for us the sympathy of divine holiness. On the contrary^
the spectacle of a race plunged in such shameful impotence
was disgusting to it. Seven Mjj. read after aadevwv the word
€Tt, yet (five of them read it previously in the beginning of
the verse). If this somewhat strange reading be admitted,
the comma need not be placed where Tischendorf puts it
(8th edition), after this en, to connect it with what precedes,
but before, to join it to the following word : Kara Kaipov, yet
in time. What led Tischendorf to this construction was, that
he mistakenly connected the first eri, in the opening of the
verse, with the verb : Christ died. Neither the sense nor
grammar is favourable to this connection. But, on the other
hand, if the second ere were joined to Kara Kaipov, yet in time,
there would be too marked an emphasis on an idea in the
passage which is purely secondary. We conclude, therefore,
that the second btl should be rejected from the text. It is, as^
Meyer thinks, a mistaken repetition arising from the fact that
this little word did not appear suitable in the beginning of
the passage, especially if a liturgical lesson commenced w^ith
ver. 6. So copyists have first transposed it after the aaOevoiv,
then doubled it by combining the two readings. — The words -.
in due time, at the right moment, may contain an allusion to
the eternal plan, iii. 25: "at the hour fixed heforehand by
divine wisdom." Or they express the idea of the suitability
of this time in relation to the state of mankind, either because
having now made full trial of their misery, they might be-
disposed to accept with faith the salvation of God ; or because
it was the last hour, when, the time of forbearance having
reached its limit (iii. 26), God, if He did not pardon, must
judge. This last meaning seems to us, from iii. 25, 26, to
be the one which best corresponds to the mind of the apostle.
— The incapacity of mankind for good, their moral sickness,
arose from their separation from God, from their voluntary
revolt against Him. This is what the apostle brings out iit
the words : for ungodly ones, which indicate the positive side-
of human perversity. Their malady inspires disgust; their
ungodliness attracts wrath. And it was when we were yet
plunged in this repulsive state of impotence and ungodliness-

CHAP, V. 6-8. 325

that the greatest proof of love was given ns, in that Christ died
for us. The preposition inrep, for, can only signify : in behalf
of. It neither implies nor excludes the idea of substitution
(in the rooin of)', it refers to the end, not at all to the mode
of the work of redemption.

To shed light on the wholly exceptional character of the
love testified to mankind in this death of Christ, the apostle
compares the action of God in this case with the noblest and
rarest proofs of devotion presented by the history of our race ;
and he bids us measure the distance which still separates
those acts of heroism from the sacrifice of God, vv. 7 and 8.

In ver. 7 he supposes two cases in the relations of man to
man, the one so extraordinary that it is hardly (/LtoXt?, hardly)
conceivable, the other difficult indeed to imagine, but yet
supposable (ra^j^a, peradventure). The relation between those
two examples has been variously understood. According to
the old Greek commentators, Calv., Beza, Fritzs., Mey., Oltram.,
etc., the relation is that of complete identity ; the expression :
vTrep Tov ayadov, for the man who is good, in the second pro-
position, designating no essentially different character from the
virep BiKaLov, for a righteous man, in the first. The second
proposition on this view is simply the justification of that
remnant of possibility which was implied in the word hardly
in the first : " hardly will one die for a just man ; I say,
hardly ; for after all I do not absolutely deny that for such a
man of probity one might be found willing to sacrifice his
life." But if such were really the apostle's meaning, why
substitute in the second proposition for the word BcKalov, the
just man, the term ayadov, the good iiut7i (or goodness) ? Why
prefix the article to the latter, which did not stand before the
former : a just . . . the good (or goodness) ? Why put the
word ayadov first in the proposition obviously indicating the
purpose to establish an antithesis between the two ideas : the
(jood man (or goodness), and a just man ? Why, finally, in the
second proposition add the word Kal, even, which establishes
a gradation, and consequently a difference between the two
examples quoted ? We are aware of the reason that has led
so many commentators to this explanation, which is inconsistent
with all the details of the text. It is the difficulty of pointing
out a satisfactory distinction between the two words hiKaLov^

326 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH.

rigUeous, and ayadov, good. According to Olsliausen, the first
denotes the man who does no evil to any one ; the second, the
man who does positive good, that is to say, more than men
have a right to exact from him. According to De Wette,
the one is the simply just man, the other the man who, to
justice, adds nobleness. According to Hodge, the one is the
man who does everything the law demands, and whose cha-
racter commands respect ; the other, the man whose conduct is
directed by love, and inspires love. According to Ewald, the
just man is he who is acknowledged innocent in regard to some
specific charge ; the good man, one who is irreproachable in all
respects. Philippi thinks that the righteous one is the honest
man, and the good, the generous and amiable man who does
good to those about him, in his family, his city, his country,
in a word, the pater 'patrice. Tholuck, finally, arrives at a
clearer and more precise distinction, by giving, like many
other commentators, to dya66<;, good, the meaning of a bene-
ficent man, first, and then by derivation, that of benefactor.
In this latter case the article the is explained by saying that
the person meant is the benefactor of the man who devotes
himself to death, or rather, according to Tholuck himself, by
the rhetorical use of the article o, the, in the sense of our
phrase : the man of virtue, the philanthropist. This latter
explanation of the article might be applied also to the other
meanings. But, despite the enormous erudition displayed by
the defenders of these various distinctions to justify them from
classic writers, all that is gained by most of them is to father a
subtlety on the apostle ; and all that is gained by the last, the
only one which presents a clear contrast between the two
terms, is to make him say what he has not said. To express,
indeed, this idea of benefactor, he had in Greek the hallowed
terms dyadoiroto^ or ev€p<yirij<s. Why not use them ? Besides,
the addition of the article finds no natural explanation in any
of these senses. Eeuss has even resolutely sacrificed it in
his translation ; " one may dare to die for a man of virtue."
Jerome, and after him Erasmus, Luther, Melanchthon, have
taken the two terms, the just and the good, in the neuter
sense : justice, goodness. But as to the former, this meaning
would have absolutely demanded the article ; the meaning of
inrep hiKaiov can be nothing else than : for a just man. — This

CHAP. V. 6-8, 327

last explanation, however, brings ns within reach of the
solution. Nothing in fact prevents us from applying Jerome's
idea to the second of the two terms, and taking virep tov
dyadov in the sense of: for goodness (and not for the good man).
This is the explanation which Eiickert in particul